With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". court concerning whether a trial court may summarily dismiss a defendant’s habeas corpus petition. The Second District has addressed the issue involving 175, 176-79, 802 N.E.2d 381, 383-86 (2d Dist. 2003), appeal allowed, 208 Ill. 2d 552, 809 N.E.2d 1291 (2004) (relying on Gaines and holding that a trial court is not authorized to summarily dismiss a mandamus complaint). However, the Fourth District reached the opposite conclusion and holds that a trial court has the inherent authority to strike a section 2 — 1401 petition sua sponte if the court finds the petition is frivolous and without merit. People v. Bramlett, 347 Ill. App. 3d 468, 472-73, 806 N.E.2d 1251, 1254-55 (4th Dist. 2004). See also Mason v. Snyder, 332 Ill. App. 3d 834, 839-43, 774 N.E.2d 457, 461-64 (4th Dist. 2002) (<HOLDING>). This district has not addressed the issue in

A: recognizing a district judge may dismiss a case sua sponte under either rule 41b or its inherent authority to manage its docket
B: recognizing that a district court may sua sponte dismiss a complaint for failure to serve after notice to the plaintiff
C: holding that district courts possess the inherent authority to dismiss an action sua sponte for failure to prosecute with or sans notice to the parties
D: holding that a trial court may evaluate mandamus petitions to determine their sufficiency and has inherent authority to strike those petitions sua sponte
D.