With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (“This Court is of the view that, with the exception of extreme cases where transfer or release might be a necessary remedy, most challenges to the constitutional adequacy of medical care should proceed as civil rights claims.... ”). The First Circuit’s ruling in Brennan v. Cunningham, that a prisoner’s claim for reinstatement in a halfway house/work release program could proceed as a habeas petition, supports this position. 813 F.2d 1, 4-5 (1st Cir.1987). Therefore, Fox’s claim that his misclassification resulted in denial of transfer to a halfway house is more appropriately construed as a habeas petition. See Kane, 319 F.Supp.2d at 215 (treating an improperly filed habeas petition as if it were filed as a civil rights claim); see also Fierro v. Gomez, 77 F.3d 301, 305 (9th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>), vacated on other grounds, 519 U.S. 918, 117

A: holding 1 that the district court properly construed one  1983 claim as a habeas petition but improperly summarily dismissed it and 2 that the district court should have construed another  1983 claim as a habeas petition
B: holding that the district court erred in summarily dismissing a  1983 complaint that should have been brought as a habeas petition
C: holding that a court may construe a section 1983 complaint as a habeas petition and vice versa
D: holding that conditionsofconfinement claims must be brought in 42 usc  1983 civil rights complaint rather than in habeas petition
C.