With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". omitted). “The holding today, as the above analysis makes clear, is limited to the particular context of prejudgment attachment.” Id. The Defendants in this case are all private parties — none of whom sought prejudgment attachment of Carlson’s property. When Carlson received WSI benefits, the award letter alerted him that his employer could challenge the decision. In Lugar, on receipt of the creditor’s ex parte petition, the clerk issued a writ of attachment; the creditor controlled the attachment process. Here, critically, WSI controlled the reconsideration process, reversing its earlier order after an independent two-month review. Since the Defendants’ “mere invocation of state legal procedures” is not state action, Lugar provides no support for Carlson’s § 1988 claim. The same 99) (<HOLDING>). By contrast, while the Defendants here

A: holding that amtrak was a state actor
B: holding that a state agency created under state law was a state actor
C: holding that a litigant who receives ex parte assurances of success from a judge is a state actor under  1983
D: holding that such a physician was a state actor under  1983
C.