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.

[EX Q]: to be heard on the motion have been misled but also show that correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the case.” E.D. Mich. Local Rule 7.1(h)(3); see Graham ex rel. Estate of Graham v. Cnty. of Washtenaw, 358 F.3d 377, 385 (6th Cir.2004). Here, the district court found that Moniz “simply is attempting to re-argue [] issues which were already ruled upon by the Court when it dismissed his Complaint,” and thus denied the motion to reconsider. R. 14 (Dist. Ct. Order at 3) (Page ID # 129). This court has stated that a district court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to reconsider where the motion “merely raise[s] arguments that were already ruled upon.” Graham, 358 F.3d at 385; see also Lommen v. McIntyre, 125 Fed.Appx. 655, 659 (6th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). There was no abuse of discretion in the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the district court did not err by concluding that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion for continuance motion to withdraw and motion for reconsideration and rehearing (B) holding it was not an abuse of discretion to deny funds (C) holding that the court did not have jurisdiction to consider an argument not presented to the board in a motion for reconsideration (D) holding that it was not an abuse of discretion to deny a motion for reconsideration where the motion presented nothing new and merely rephrased allegations in the complaint (E) holding under third circuit law that the denial of a motion for reconsideration is reviewed for abuse of discretion
[EX A]: holding that the district court did not err by concluding that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion for continuance motion to withdraw and motion for reconsideration and rehearing

[EX Q]: rise to the level of the allegations in Harke-ma. While physical abuse obviously endangers a child, Ma Donna’s account of her January 1997 fight with F.G. is not inconsistent with F.G.’s charge (except for the allegation of hair-pulling). An alleged single incident of borderline abuse or neglect has been held not to constitute sufficient endangerment to warrant a custody modification. See Smith, 508 N.W.2d at 227 (insufficient endangerment where child was injured by fallen cuckoo clock and mother allegedly examined clock before child). Under the circumstances, the court did not abuse its discretion in giving this incident little weight. This court has been inconsistent in categorizing a custodial parent’s efforts to isolate the child from relatives. Compare Westphal, 457 N.W.2d at 229 (<HOLDING>) with Smith, 508 N.W.2d at 227 (stating that a 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that postadoption visitation of child who was adopted by grandparents on basis of biological parents unconditional consent was required to promote childs best interests (B) holding that paramount consideration in terminationofparentalrights proceeding is best interests of the child (C) holding mothers cutting off contact with grandparents to be best interests consideration but not evidence of endangerment (D) holding that best interests of the child analysis requires consideration of all section 5328a factors (E) holding unconstitutional a statute authorizing courts to recognize grandparents as having the same standing as parents for evaluating what custody arrangements are in the best interest of the child where the child actually resided with the grandparents in a stable relationship
[EX A]: holding that postadoption visitation of child who was adopted by grandparents on basis of biological parents unconditional consent was required to promote childs best interests

[EX Q]: . The record indicates that Heard has been confined to at least three different maximum-security facilities, including the Standish Maximum Correctional Facility in Standish, Michigan, the Baraga Maximum Correctional Facility in Baraga, Michigan, and the Marquette Branch Prison in Marquette, Michigan. 3 . The R & R also recommended denial of Heard's motion for a preliminary injunction and motion for summary judgment, both of which had been filed before the defendants filed their motion to dismiss. 4 . Heard styled the motion an "affidavit,” but it was unsworn. 5 . With respect to Heard’s RLUIPA claim against defendants in their official capacities, Heard may seek only declaratory or injunctive relief and not monetary relief. See Cardinal v. Metrish, 564 F.3d 794, 798-801 (6th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>). This court has not ruled, however, on whether 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that states and state officials acting in their official capacities are not persons subject to liability under  1983 (B) holding that state sovereign immunity bars state constitutional claims (C) holding that neither a state agency nor its officials acting in their official capacities may be sued under section 1983 (D) holding that the doctrine of sovereign immunity bars the recovery of monetary damages under rluipa when state officials are sued in their official capacities (E) holding that neither a state nor its officials acting in their official capacities are persons under  1983
[EX A]:
holding that states and state officials acting in their official capacities are not persons subject to liability under  1983