With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". G. Hale filed in the district court a complaint raising personal injury claims against multiple defendants. At the same time, Hale filed a similar complaint in state court, which was removed to the district court and filed as a separate action. Hale now seeks leave to proceed in forma pau-peris (IFP) on appeal from the district court’s orders consolidating her two civil actions and denying in part her motion to remand her claims to state court. By seeking leave to proceed IFP in this court, Hale is challenging the district court’s denial of her request for leave to proceed IFP on appeal and certification that this appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). “This Court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction, on its own (5th Cir. 1981) (<HOLDING>). Because this court lacks jurisdiction to

A: holding an order denying a motion for summary judgment is interlocutory and not appealable
B: holding an order allowing a motion under rule 60b is not immediately appealable because it is interlocutory and does not affect a substantial right
C: holding that denial of counsel in section 1983 action is not immediately appealable
D: holding that the denial of a motion to remand is interlocutory and not immediately appealable
D.