With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of his action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failure to state a claim. He contends that the Los Angeles Police Department, the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office, the California Bureau of Firearms, and individual officers, agents, and attorneys violated his Second Amendment rights by seizing firearms and ammunition he kept in his home, and then prosecuting him for the unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition. Fortson had previously been convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, which under California law, automatically triggers a ten-year prohibition on the ownership or possession of firearms and ammunition. Fortson’s sentencing judge gave him a partial exception so Fortson could keep and possess firearms at his place of work as an armed security guard 054-55 (9th Cir. 2009) (<HOLDING>). Fortson also claims a violation of the Fifth

A: holding that section 1983 claims alleging due process violations stemming from malicious prosecution are unavailable when a state malicious prosecution action exists
B: holding that a  1983 due process claim that essentially contests the fairness of the plaintiffs prosecution  is  similar to his malicious prosecution claim and claims resembling malicious prosecution do not accrue until the prosecution has terminated in the plaintiffs favor 
C: holding that the statute applies also to malicious prosecution actions
D: holding the same for malicious prosecution
D.