With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (unpublished). The prior Order entered in this case on May 25, 2004 denying respondent’s initial motion to dismiss and staying the case on exhaustion grounds constitutes an interlocutory Order, which this Court is permitted to reconsider. Moreover, justification exists for reconsideration of the decision to deny the motion to dismiss given the “intervening change in the controlling law” on statutory tolling by the Supreme Court in Lawrence, which calls into question this Court’s prior ruling on the statute of limitations issue. The law-of-the-case doctrine cannot be applied under the circumstances of this case to insulate the prior ruling “from a subsequent decision by a superior court calling that ruling into question.” Kucharski v. Leveille, 478 F.Supp.2d 928, 932 (E.D.Mich.2007) (<HOLDING>), vacated on other grounds, 526 F.Supp.2d 768

A: holding that application of the doctrine of law of the case is discretionary and that a district court abuses its discretion in applying the law of the case doctrine only if 1 the first decision was clearly erroneous 2 an intervening change in the law occurred 3 the evidence on remand was substantially different 4 other changed circumstances exist or 5 a manifest injustice would otherwise result
B: holding in a prisoner civil rights action that the lawofthecase doctrine does not apply to preclude reconsideration of a prior order denying a motion to dismiss on statute of limitations grounds in light of an intervening change in the law by the supreme court which called into question the prior ruling
C: holding that in ruling on a motion for summary judgment the trial court is limited to the grounds raised in the motion
D: recognizing that the lawofthecase doctrine applies to preliminary injunctions and stating that tjhe exception to law of the case where evidence on a subsequent trial is substantially different is inapplicable where by the prior appeal the issue is not left open for decision
B.