TASK DEFINITION: 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.
PROBLEM: transcript has the same character as the act of denying a debtor the opportunity to register for class or to graduate, as it deprives a student of a service that would be available to her were she not a debtor ...” Id. at 534. Numerous courts have examined the issue whether an educational institution violates the automatic stay when it withholds a debtor’s transcript due to an outstanding tuition balance or student loan debt. “The majority view is that the withholding of a debtor’s transcript because of an outstanding tuition balance or unpaid student loans violates the automatic stay.” In re Moore, 407 B.R. 855, 860 (Bankr.E.D.Va.2009) (citing In re Mu’min, 374 B.R. 149, 155 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.2007)); Parker, 334 B.R. at 534-36; see also In re Carson, 150 B.R. 228, 231 (Bankr.E.D.Mo.1993) (<HOLDING>). ANALYSIS Based on the foregoing, the Court 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the denial of a motion to find a violation of the automatic stay was a final order (B) holding judgment in violation of automatic stay void (C) holding that university violated the automatic stay by withholding chapter 7 debtors transcripts because the debts were not yet determined nondischargeable (D) holding that creditors failure to voluntarily turn over property lawfully seized prepetition constituted violation of automatic stay (E) holding that a college withholding delivery of transcripts due to an outstanding prepetition debt is an act to collect in violation of the automatic stay

SOLUTION: holding that the denial of a motion to find a violation of the automatic stay was a final order

PROBLEM: 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

SOLUTION: holding that there is no substantive due process right under the fourteenth amendment to be free from malicious prosecution

PROBLEM: at 10 (citing Sanders v. City of Union Springs, 207 Fed.Appx. 960, 966 (11th Cir.2006); Byrd v. Clark, 783 F.2d 1002, 1007 (11th Cir.1986)). Plaintiffs have not, however, demonstrated that the law was “clearly established” that a law enforcement officer can be held liable under § 1983 for failing to prevent another officer’s unlawful search. “A Government official’s conduct violates clearly established law when, at the time of the challenged conduct, ‘[t]he contours of [a] right [are] sufficie e a duty to intervene in unlawful searches when they are in a position to do so, it cannot be said that the Canine Handlers and Alma Officers violated clearly established law by failing to intervene in these particular circumstance. See, e.g., Jones v. Cannon, 174 F.3d 1271, 1286 (11th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). The facts alleged in this case are distinct 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a police officer was not liable for use of excessive force since  951 requirements were satisfied (B) holding that an officer could be held liable for failing to intervene in preventing an unlawful strip search (C) holding that while case law generally indicates that an officer can be held liable for failing to intervene in another officers use of excessive force the absence of authority from the supreme court or the eleventh circuit dealing with similar circumstances supported granting qualified immunity to a defendant (D) holding that inquiry as to whether officers are entitled to qualified immunity for use of excessive force is distinct from inquiry on the merits of the excessive force claim (E) holding that a military police officer was entitled to qualified immunity from an excessive force suit when he objectively reasonably believed that he used reasonable force

SOLUTION:
holding that a police officer was not liable for use of excessive force since  951 requirements were satisfied