With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated. But if the district court determines that the plaintiffs action, even if successful, will not demonstrate the invalidity of any outstanding criminal judgment against the plaintiff, the action should be allowed to proceed, in the absence of some other bar to the suit.” Id. at 487, 114 S.Ct. 2364. Defendants contend that the relief Grier seeks would necessarily implicate or undermine the validity of his criminal convictions. Previously, several appellate courts were split as to whether a § 1983 claim to compel state officials to release evidence for postconviction DNA testing is a claim seeking to undermine a plaintiffs conviction. Compare Kutzner v. Montgomery County, 303 F.3d 339, 340 (5th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>), Harvey v. Horan, 278 F.3d 370, 377 (4th

A: holding that there is no postconviction due process right to biological evidence for purposes of dna testing
B: holding that a claim seeking dna testing is cognizable under section 1983
C: holding that a  1983 claim requesting release of evidence for dna testing is cognizable because plaintiff only seeks access to evidence
D: holding that no  1983 claim exists for injunctive relief to compel dna testing
D.