With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 101 S.Ct. 1908, 68 L.Ed.2d 420 (1981) (overruled on other grounds by Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 330-31, 106 S.Ct. 662, 88 L.Ed.2d 662 (1986)). This decision was proper. A plaintiff is not required to exhaust state remedies before pursuing a § 1983 claim. Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 183, 81 S.Ct. 473, 5 L.Ed.2d 492 (1961). However, in a procedural due process case where a government official deprives a plaintiff of property by way of an unauthorized official act rather than pursuant to established procedures, the plaintiff has no due process claim if the state provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy. Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. at 544, 101 S.Ct. 1908; see also Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422, 435-36, 102 S.Ct. 1148, 71 L.Ed.2d 265 (1982) (<HOLDING>); Vicory v. Walton, 721 F.2d 1062 (6th

A: holding parratt does not apply where an officer acts pursuant to established procedures
B: holding that anders procedures apply to juvenile appeals
C: holding that although jury found officer not to have had probable cause for arrest officer was entitled to immunity because law was not clearly established as to circumstances in which officer found himself
D: holding that subsection 6 did not apply where state patrol officer was not acting pursuant to any policy in causing collision
A.