instruction:
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. The four incorrect answers are other holding statements. You should find the correct option. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.
question:
some recognized legal théory. Spinale v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 621 F.Supp.2d 112, 119 (S.D.NY 2009) (McMahon, J.) aff'd sub nom., 356 Fed.Appx: 465 (2d Cir.2009). However, a complaint containing “factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged” will survive a motion to dismiss. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955). B. Prison Litigation Reform Act As a threshold matter, the parties dispute whether the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) bars Plaintiffs from recovering compensatory damages. In relevant part, the statute states that “[n]o Federal civil action may be brought by a priso N.Y.2002) (Scheindlin, J.) aff'd, 56 Fed.Appx. 43 (2d Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). For the well-articulated reasons in Judge 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the relevant time of inquiry is the date of the filing of the complaint (B) holding with respect to another part of the plra that the court must determine the prisoners status on the date the suit or appeal is brought rather than at some other time (C) holding that the plra only applies to plaintiffs who are incarcerated at the time an action is commenced (D) holding that the plra bar applies to lawsuits brought by inmates regardless of whether the inmate is incarcerated at the time of filing or whether the plaintiff is subsequently paroled sentenced or released (E) holding that the donovan rule applies regardless of whether the injunction is issued before or after the federal court filing
answer:
(D)


question:
Respondents reversed their position at oral argument) that once subsection four applies, subsection one no longer governs. The parties do dispute the meaning of the word “claimant” in subsection four. Under the plurality’s view, as Chief Justice Eismann points out in the Gillihan II dissent, the word “claimant” in subsection four must be synonymous with the idea of “prevailing party.” This is because, in order for the word “claimant” in subsection four to refer to either the defendant or plaintiff, it must also signify that such a defendant or plaintiff has prevailed in the personal injury action, since losing parties do not recover attorney fees under Idaho law. See Gillihan II at 271, 92 P.3d at 521 (Eismann, J., concurring in disse 53 Idaho 200, 201, 23 P.2d 739, 740 (1933) (<HOLDING>); In re Segregation of School Dist. No. 58 from 
 Holding statements: (A) holding elimination of provisions prior to passage of bill requiring a certificate of convenience and necessity indicates legislature intentionally omitted such provisions (B) holding that statutory notice provisions for notice of default and opportunity to cure were waived by provisions of note as to one obligor though provisions applied to coobligor who used property as residence (C) holding that the hearing provisions of the ina supersede the provisions of the apa (D) holding predecessor statute unconstitutional specifically because of vicariousliability provisions elimination of intent requirement (E) holding that such provisions are valid
answer:
(A)


question:
to meet his burden of bringing up a proper record and, therefore, dismiss his appeal. Appeal dismissed. Glaze, J., would remand with directions to dismiss. 1 As of April 6,2006, L.B. had been living outside of the home for twelve months. 2 After reviewing the record before us, it appears that the circuit court assumed it was operating under the old rules at the hearing on June 15,2006; however, the final order was filed on July 13,2006, and the record on appeal was lodged September 25,2006. Therefore, the new court rules regarding dependency-neglect cases, which were adopted on July 1,2006, apply to the instant appeal. See In Re: Adoption of Rules 6-9 & 6-10 of the Supreme Court & Court of Appeals (Rulesfor Appeals in Dependency-Neglect Cases), 366 Ark. App’x 628 (2006) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). Regardless, our conclusion would be the same 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that evidence in an inadmissible form may be considered at the summary judgment stage as long as the evidence is submitted in an admissible form at trial (B) holding that the filing of an opening brief within the time period for filing a notice of appeal could constitute notice of appeal (C) holding time for filing notice of appeal under rule 8002 is jurisdictional (D) holding that tjhese rules are effective july 12006 at which time appeals shall be commenced by filing the notice ofappeal and designation of record form 1 as set out in rule 69 (E) holding that in order for a defendant to remove a case to federal court based upon diversity jurisdiction there must be complete diversity of citizenship both at the time that the case is commenced and at the time that the notice of removal is filed
answer:

(D)