With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Macias was deprived of her federal constitutional right to the erm “injury” to refer to the compensable harm that may have been caused by the alleged constitutional deprivation. We agree with the Appellants that the district court erred as a matter of law in concluding that the alleged constitutional deprivation was the murder of Mrs. Macias. It is well established that “there is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen.” Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616, 618 (7th Cir.1982). There is a constitutional right, however, to have police services administered in a nondiscriminatory manner — a right that is violated when a state actor denies such protection to disfavored persons. See Navarro v. Block, 72 F.3d 712, 715-17 (9th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d

A: recognizing such a claim under  1983
B: recognizing cause of action
C: recognizing the cause of action
D: recognizing a cause of action under  1983 based upon the discriminatory denial of police services
D.