With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Federal courts are required to afford the same full faith and credit to state court judgments that would be provided by the courts of that state. See 28 U.S.C. § 1738 (1994). In accordance with this mandate, federal courts have consistently applied the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel to bar relitigation of issues previously decided in state courts. See Kremer v. Chemical Constr. Corp., 456 U.S. 461, 467 n. 6, 102 S.Ct. 1883, 1890 n. 6, 72 L.Ed.2d 262 (1982). These principles are integral to our judiciary because they “relieve parties of the cost and vexation of multiple lawsuits, conserve judicial resources, and, by preventing inconsistent decisions, encourage reliance on adjudication.” Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94, 101 S.Ct. 411, 415, 66 L.Ed.2d 308 (1980) (<HOLDING>). Respecting the finality of state court

A: holding that the ind trial rules do not apply to actions before the board
B: holding that preclusion rules apply in section 1983 actions
C: holding issue preclusion bars section 1983 plaintiff from relitigating fourth amendment issue decided in state court criminal proceeding
D: holding that nonmutual issue preclusion should not apply against the state government
B.