In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision.  Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. You should write an incorrect option. Even though there exist multiple wrong answers, we only need a single wrong answer. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.

P.2d 171, 174-75 (1997) (providing that a party seeking to change custody must establish that circumstances have substantially changed since the most recent custodial order, and that any events that took place before the prior proceedings cannot be used to show changed circumstances). Although we will not substantively review the decree’s child custody arrangement because of mootness, we note, in passing, that a district court, faced with evidence that one parent is attempting to disrupt the other parent’s 8 (1993); see also NRS 125.480(1) (providing that the sole consideration in awarding custody of a child is the best interest of the child). 11 84 Nev. 710, 447 P.2d 664 (1968). 12 Id. at 711, 447 P.2d at 665. 13 Cf. Hopper v. Hopper, 113 Nev. 1138, 1143, 946 P.2d 171, 174-75 (1997) (<HOLDING>). 14 Most v. Most, 477 A.2d 250, 263 (Me. 1984) 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that conduct that preceded the prior custody determination cannot be admitted to show a change in circumstances (B) holding the teenage childrens preference to live in fathers home was sufficient evidence to support a change in physical custody in a modification of a split physical custody arrangement even though the party seeking the change failed to demonstrate a change in circumstances (C) holding that a showing of a change in circumstances that is or is likely to be beneficial to the child may also warrant a change in custody (D) holding that a subsequent petition may be filed upon a showing of a change in circumstances (E) holding court cannot change custody without showing that change is in best interests of child
holding the teenage childrens preference to live in fathers home was sufficient evidence to support a change in physical custody in a modification of a split physical custody arrangement even though the party seeking the change failed to demonstrate a change in circumstances

rights by initiating criminal proceedings against Mr. Pitt without probable cause. After trial, the district court granted judgment as a matter of law to the defendants on these claims. The court held that it is not “clearly established” that malicious prosecution is a violation of constitutional rights, and. thus the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. We affirm. Section 1983 creates a cause of action to remedy certain deprivations of federal rights, but it is not a source of substantive rights. See Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 144 n. 3, 99 S.Ct. 2689, 61 L.Ed.2d 433 (1979) (noting that “[section 1983] is not itself a source of substantive rights, but a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred by those parts of the United State 16 (2d Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); Gallo v. City of Philadelphia, 161 F.3d 217, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that there is no substantive due process right under the fourteenth amendment to be free from malicious prosecution (B) holding that the fourth amendment right implicated in a malicious prosecution action is the right to be free of unreasonable seizure of the person (C) holding sbm is not a violation of the defendants fourth amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures (D) holding that there is no fourteenth amendment substantive due process right to be free from malicious prosecution and suggesting that such a cause of action might lie under the fourth amendment (E) recognizing that an alleged deprivation of the right to be free from prosecution without probable cause might be judged under the fourth amendment
holding that there is no substantive due process right under the fourteenth amendment to be free from malicious prosecution

2007, no pet.) (op. on reh’g); Nelson v. Regions Mortgage, Inc., 170 S.W.3d 858, 863 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2005, no pet.). It is well settled that the DJA is not a grant of jurisdiction; rather, it is a procedural device for deciding cases already within a court’s jurisdiction. Chenault v. Phillips, 914 S.W.2d 140, 141 (Tex.1996); City of Houston v. Buttitta, 274 S.W.3d 850, 853 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, no pet.) (op. on reh’g). Here, York claims that the justice court’s order awarding the property to the State for the benefit of the Wise County Sheriffs Office is void allas 2003, no pet.); Davis v. Boone, 786 S.W.2d 85, 87 n. 3 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1990, no writ). But see S. County Mut. Ins. Co. v. Powell, 736 S.W.2d 745, 749-50 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1987, no writ) (<HOLDING>). To prevail on a collateral attack, the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a judgment as to the title in a prior litigation was not subject to collateral attack (B) recognizing bankruptcy courts jurisdiction over such a collateral attack (C) holding that dormant judgment is voidable and therefore not subject to collateral attack (D) holding in dictum that extrinsic evidence should be permissible to show applicability of automatic stay in collateral attack against judgment (E) recognizing collateral attack on void order

holding that a judgment as to the title in a prior litigation was not subject to collateral attack