With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 957 F.2d 353, 354 (7th Cir.1992) (citations omitted). To state a viable claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to demonstrate that he was “deprived of an interest secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, and the deprivation was visited upon him by a person or persons acting under color of state law.” Wright v. Associated Ins. Cos. Inc., 29 F.3d 1244, 1249 (7th Cir.1994) (citing Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 638-40, 100 S.Ct. 1920, 1923-24, 64 L.Ed.2d 572 (1980)). However, “[i]n evaluating constitutional claims of prisoners, we must balance the need to protect prisoners’ procedural rights against the need for prison safety and security.” Pardo v. Hosier, 946 F.2d 1278, 1280 (7th Cir.1991); see also Woods v. O’Leary, 890 F.2d 883 (7th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). In 1972, the United States Supreme Court

A: holding that prison regulations impinging on prisoners constitutional rights are only valid where reasonably related to legitimate penological interests
B: holding that prison administration may infringe upon prisoners first amendment rights as long as the infringement is reasonably related to legitimate penological interest
C: holding that when a prison regulation impinges on inmates constitutional rights the regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests
D: holding that regulations may impinge constitutional rights if the regulation is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests
D.