With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Critchlow, 661 F.2d 116, 118 (9th Cir.1981) (citation omitted). A case “is less likely to be considered frivolous when there is ‘very little case law directly apposite.’ ” Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters v. Silver State Disposal Serv., Inc., 109 F.3d 1409, 1412 (9th Cir.1997) (citation omitted). In view of the absence of Ninth Circuit authority on the OR release restrictions issue, we cannot say that our resolution of Karam’s seizure argument was “obvious” or that Karam’s Fourth Amendment claims were otherwise frivolous. See, e.g., Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 109 F.3d at 1412 (refusing to award fees and costs because of the lack of case law defining the precise contours of the exceptions to the doctrine of functus officio); Parks Sch. of Bus., Inc. v. Symington, 51 F.3d 1480, 1489 (9th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, we conclude the district court

A: holding that prevailing plaintiffs and prevailing defendants seeking attorney fees are to be treated alike
B: holding that a pro se litigant who is an attorney is not entitled to fees under  1988
C: holding that although plaintiff was entitled to fees under  1988 there were special circumstances which allowed the chancellor in his discretion to deny an award
D: holding that the prevailing defendant was not entitled to attorney fees under  1988 because there was very little case law directly apposite
D.