With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 22] Francis argues that she must have access to State court remedies because the PHA was the only defendant in her Tribal Court litigation and because a jury trial, attorney fees, punitive damages, and the capacity to seek relief pursuant to the Maine Civil Rights Act (MCRA) were not available to her in Tribal Court. If such were the case, any claim involving an internal tribal matter could be shifted to State court by the simple device of pleading an entitlement to a remedy not available in Tribal Court. [¶ 23] The important policies of the law to support tribal self-government over internal tribal matters limits claims involving such matters where, as here, some remedy and a forum to assert entitlement to the remedy is available within the Tribe. See Fellencer, 164 F.3d at 707, 713 (<HOLDING>); see also Akins, 130 F.3d at 485, 486 n. 5.

A: holding that district courts do not have appellate jurisdiction over state courts
B: holding that federal and state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over  1983 claims
C: holding that a federal district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over a suit that effectively sought review of an indiana state courts decision
D: holding that the nations decision to terminate fellencers employment was an internal tribal matter within the meaning of section 62061 over which state courts lacked jurisdiction notwithstanding the fact that its decision foreclosed fellencers ability to pursue a claim under the maine human rights act over which like mcra claims maine superior courts have exclusive jurisdiction
D.