With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (6th Cir.), reh’g detiied (6th Cir.1997); Schagene v. United States, 37 Fed.Cl. 661, 663 (1997) (finding that it was not the intent of Congress to eliminate the in forma pauperis right of access to federal courts of eligible, indigent, non-prisoners), appeal dismissed, 152 F.3d 947, 1998 WL 187786 (Fed.Cir.1998); see also In re Prison Litigation Reform Act, 105 F.3d 1131, 1134 (6th Cir.1997) (discussing how to administer in forma pauperis rights to a non-prisoner, thereby acknowledging the rights of non-prisoners to apply for in forma pauperis status); Leonard v. Lacy, 88 F.3d 181, 183 (2d Cir.1996) (using "sic" following the word “prisoner” in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) seemingly to indicate that the use of that word was too narrow); Powell v. Hoover, 956 F.Supp. 564, 566 (M.D.Pa.1997) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) refers to

A: holding that venue for litigation was proper based on 28 usc  1441 regardless of whether defendant was doing business in the district within the meaning of 28 usc  1391
B: holding that a fair reading of the entire section 28 usc  1915a1 is that it is not limited to prisoner suits
C: holding that where jurisdiction was based on 28 usc  2201 venue was determined as per 28 usc  1391
D: holding a bankruptcy court is not a court of the united states entitled to waive filing fees pursuant to 28 usc section 1915a
B.