With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Katz-Crank’s claim fails on the first of these requirements. She hasn’t alleged that the former Secretary of State or any of the investigators — state or county— either instituted the prosecution against her or caused it to be instituted. She has not alleged, for example, that these defendants plied the prosecutors with evidence they knew to be false or otherwise duped the prosecutors to indict her without probable cause. See Alexander v. United States, 721 F.3d 418, 423 (7th Cir. 2013) (explaining that under Indiana law a malicious-prosecution claim can be made against a defendant who did not himself initiate the prosecution when the prosecution is initiated solely based on information provided by the defendant); Bah v. Mac’s Convenience Stores, 37 N.E.3d 539, 547 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, Katz-Crank failed to state a

A: holding that a claim for malicious prosecution is not available when a prosecutor makes an independent determination of whether to pursue criminal charges
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 action could not form the basis of a malicious prosecution claim where criminal information was dismissed as insufficient to support the charges without prejudice and the prosecutors did not amend or refile
D: holding the same for malicious prosecution
A.