With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 719 S.W.2d 825, 826 (Mo.Ct.App.1986); Morgano v. Smith, 110 Nev. 1025, 879 P.2d 735, 737-38 (1994); Carmel v. Lunney, 70 N.Y.2d 169, 518 N.Y.S.2d 605, 511 N.E.2d 1126, 1128 (1987); Stevens v. Bispham, 316 Or. 221, 851 P.2d 556, 561 (Or.1993); Bailey v. Tucker, 533 Pa. 237, 621 A.2d 108, 113 (1993); Gibson v. Trant, No. M1999-00390-COA-R3-CV, 2000 WL 320666, at *2 (Tenn.Ct.App. March 29, 2000) (unreported); Peeler v. Hughes & Luce, 909 S.W.2d 494, 497-98 (Tex.1995) (“Peeler II ”); Peeler v. Hughes & Luce, 868 S.W.2d 823, 831-32 (Tex.App.1993) (“Peeler I”), aff'd, 909 S.W.2d 494 (Tex.1995); Adkins v. Dixon, 253 Va. 275, 482 S.E.2d 797, 801, cert. denied, 522 U.S. 937, 118 S.Ct. 348, 139 L.Ed.2d 270 (1997); cf. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994) (<HOLDING>). Several of the same jurisdictions, as well as

A: holding that to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid a 42 usc  1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal expunged by executive order declared invalid by a state tribunal  or called into question by federal courts issuance of writ of habeas corpus footnote omitted
B: holding that a state prisoner must bring his claim in habeas only if by prevailing he would necessarily prove the unlawfulness of his conviction or confinement
C: holding that a plaintiff requesting relief under  1983 had no cause of action unless and until the conviction or sentence is reversed expunged invalidated or impugned by the grant of a writ of habeas corpus
D: holding that a claim for damages that would invalidate a conviction or sentence that has not already been invalidated or reversed on direct appeal by executive order by an authorized state tribunal or by a writ of habeas corpus is not cognizable under  1983
A.