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.

Input: Consider Input: protected conduct, and that such action (4) chilled the inmate’s exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal. Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir.2005). The First Amendment guarantees a prisoner a right to seek redress of grievances from prison authorities and as well as a right of meaningful access to the courts. Bradley v. Hall, 64 F.3d 1276, 1279 (9th Cir.1995); see also Hasan v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 400 F.3d 1001, 1005 (7th Cir.2005) (“Prisoners’ grievances, unless frivolous ..., concerning the conditions in which they are being confined are deemed petitions for redress of grievances and thus are protected by the First Amendment.”); Wolfel v. Bates, 707 F.2d 932, 934 (6th Cir.1983) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, Jones’s complaints of 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing first amendment retaliation right (B) holding that administrative remedies are unavailable if prison officials fail to respond to prisoners grievances (C) recognizing that prisoners undoubtedly exercise first amendment petition right when filing grievances and stating that prison officials may not retaliate against prisoners for filing grievances (D) holding that an inmate has a first amendment right to file grievances against prison officials (E) recognizing prisoners first amendment right to eom plain to prison officials about discrimination

Output: recognizing first amendment retaliation right


Input: Consider Input: Center. v. National League of Postmasters of U.S., 497 F.3d 972, 974-75 (9th Cir.2007) (finding that Cedars-Sinai’s claims were not preempted because they were “predicated not on the [service benefits] plan” but on a separate contract between the carrier and the medical services provider). Plaintiffs claim that Plaintiff never received compensation for the emergency care of B.G. directly relates to the processing and administration of the enrollee’s covered claims which is governed by the Service Benefits Plan and the Contract between Blue Shield and OPM. Any obligation that Blue Shield could have to pay Plaintiff stems directly from the B.G.’s enrollment in the Service Benefit Plan and directly relates to the payment of B.G.’s benefits under the plan. See Hayes, 819 F.2d at 926 (<HOLDING>); Botsford, 314 F.3d at 396 (“Because the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that tort claims arising out of the manner in which a benefit claim is handled are preempted by fehba (B) holding that breach of fiduciary duty claim was preempted by fehba (C) holding state law claims arising out of unions refusal to readmit union members preempted by  301 (D) holding that fehba does not completely preempt state law (E) holding that the plaintiffs state law claims are preempted by federal law

Output: holding that breach of fiduciary duty claim was preempted by fehba


Input: Consider Input: It is true that “[i]f a party timely files a petition for rehearing or reconsideration in accordance with the rules of the agency, the time to petition for review [by this court] runs from the date when notice of the order denying the petition is given.” D.C. App. R. 15 (b). By referring to “a petition,” the rule seems to allow only one motion for reconsideration to toll the time for appeal. Id. However, we need not rely solely on such a close parsing of the rule. There are sound policies behind permitting only one motion for reconsideration to extend the time for seeking review. Otherwise, a party could defeat the purpose of setting time limits for seeking appellate review by repeatedly filing motions for reconsideration. See, e.g., Yates v. Behrend, 280 F.2d 64, 65 (D.C. Cir. 1960) (<HOLDING>); De Foe v. Nat’l Capital Bank, 90 A.2d 242, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an unauthorized motion for rehearing does not toll defendants time for filing a notice of appeal (B) holding that a second motion for reconsideration did not toll the time for appeal because to hold otherwise would permit dilatory tactics destructive of the finality of the judgment (C) holding filing of motion for reconsideration does not toll the 30day deadline for filing petition for review (D) holding that the filing of a motion for reconsideration does not toll the period for seeking judicial review of the underlying order (E) holding that notice of appeal did not divest the district court of jurisdiction at the time it was filed because a motion for reconsideration was pending


Output: holding that an unauthorized motion for rehearing does not toll defendants time for filing a notice of appeal