With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". ORDER UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be VACATED and REMANDED for further proceedings. Plaintiff-Appellant Joel Murray, a state prisoner, appeals pro se, informa pauper-is, from dismissal of his claims in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Mukasey, C.J.). The district court dismissed sua sponte Murray’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as failing to state claims on which relief can be granted. On appeal, Murray does not challenge dismissal of his claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution, which he concedes were “properly dismissed” under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 489, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994) (<HOLDING>). Murray’s chief argument on appeal is that the

A: holding that a plaintiff requesting relief under  1983 had no cause of action unless and until the conviction or sentence is reversed expunged invalidated or impugned by the grant of a writ of habeas corpus
B: holding that in order to recover damages for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid a plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal expunged by executive order declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination or called into question by a federal courts issuance of a writ of habeas corpus
C: recognizing that  1983 action does not accrue until conviction or sentence has been invalidated
D: holding that a claim for damages that would invalidate a conviction or sentence that has not already been invalidated or reversed on direct appeal by executive order by an authorized state tribunal or by a writ of habeas corpus is not cognizable under  1983
A.