With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". this provision codifies the common-law standard for injunctive relief, generally referred to as the “need-narrowness-intrusiveness” standard. See H.R. Rep. 104-21, at 24 n.2 (1995) (explaining that the “dictates of [18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1) ] are not a departure from current jurisprudence concerning injunctive relief’); see also Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849, 872 (9th Cir.2001); Smith v. Ark. Dep’t of Corr., 103 F.3d 637, 647 (8th Cir.1996); Williams v. Edwards, 87 F.3d 126, 133 n. 21 (5th Cir.1996). Likewise, the PLRA requires that any prospective relief “extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a particular plaintiff or plaintiffs.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A); cf. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 357-360, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996) (<HOLDING>). In class action lawsuits such as Plata and

A: holding that a remedy that prison officials prevent a prisoner from utilizing is not an available remedy under  1997e
B: holding that the remedy in a prison conditions case must remedy actual injuries that have been identified by the court and suffered by the plaintiffs
C: recognizing a bivens remedy for undocumented immigrants who were subjects of a raid by federal immigration officials reasoning that if a bivens remedy were precluded the present plaintiffs would have no forum in which to seek a remedy for the defendants alleged constitutional violations
D: holding that the appealing party had sur rendered his claim to the equitable remedy of vacatur by settling the case and thus voluntarily forfeiting his legal remedy by the ordinary processes of appeal
B.