With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the state court prosecution. Price raised the issue at the original suppression hearing, and his motion to suppress was denied. He then pleaded guilty, but appealed the denial of the motion; his appeal was also denied. Obviously, Price was a party to the state criminal proceeding, and, given the seriousness of the charges, he was motivated to fully litigate the issue at the time. See Ayers, 895 F.2d at 1271-72. Price does not get two bites at the apple. The Supreme Court has expressly rejected the idea that “every person asserting a federal right is entitled to one unencumbered opportunity to litigate that right in a federal district court, regardless of the legal posture in which the federal claim arises.” Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 103, 101 S.Ct. 411, 419, 66 L.Ed.2d 308 (1980) (<HOLDING>). This is so even if “the state court’s

A: holding that collateral estoppel applies to  1983 claims
B: holding that the state law of collateral estoppel applies in civil rights actions brought under 42 usc  1983
C: holding that conditionsofconfinement claims must be brought in 42 usc  1983 civil rights complaint rather than in habeas petition
D: holding that a state is not a person under 42 usc  1983
B.