With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". v. United States, 645 F.3d 1042, 1047 (9th Cir. 2011), and we affirm. Wright claims that Bureau of Prisons officials have unconstitutionally prevented him from litigating his criminal conviction by seizing his mail and sanctioning him with the loss of phone, visitation, and email correspondence privileges. These claims are not cognizable under section 2241 because they do not concern the manner, location, or conditions of his sentence’s execution. See Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 864 (9th Cir. 2000). Rather, as the district court concluded, the appropriate remedy for Wright’s claims lies in a civil rights action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). See Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 97 S.Ct. 1491, 52 L.Ed.2d 72 (1977) (<HOLDING>); Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334, 1341

A: holding that principles of comity bar challenges to state tax law which seek money damages under 42 usc  1983
B: recognizing right of prisoners to seek relief under 42 usc  1983 for denial of access to the courts
C: holding that in actions brought under 42 usc  1983 federal courts apply the states statute of limitation for personal injury
D: holding that a state is not a person under 42 usc  1983
B.