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.
--------
Question: 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

Answer: recognizing first amendment retaliation right


Question: for public use, without just compensation." U.S. Const, amend. V. 16 . Plaintiffs’ April 3, 2009 Complaint alleges that Plaintiffs never received a Notice of Deficiency for any of the tax years at issue. Compl. at 2. Plaintiffs, however, attached a copy of a Notice of Deficiency for 1997 and 1998 in their Petition to the Tax Court challenging the deficiency determinations for these years. Gov't Mot. Ex. C. Further, Plaintiffs did not dispute their receipt of a Notice of Deficiency at the November 15, 2002 CDP hearing. Gov’t Mot. Exs. E, G, H. Section 2514 of Title 28 of the United States Code requires forfeiture of a tax claim when a party attempts to establish its claim through fraud. 28 U.S.C. § 2514; see also Standard Oil v. United States, 98 Ct.Cl. 201, 246, 47 F.Supp. 120 (1942) (<HOLDING>); see also Kamen Soap Products v. United 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that plaintiffs claim for refund of corporate income taxes was forfeited when plaintiff presented forged corporate minutes to the irs with the knowledge they were forged (B) holding that a fraudulent transfer claim against a corporate debtors control person belongs to the corporate debtor not to specific creditors (C) holding that a corporate officer signing a contract in his corporate capacity is generally not liable for damages under the contract (D) holding that the general corporate laws are incorporated into the corporate charter (E) holding that grand jury testimony of officer and inhouse counsel for corporate defendant was properly admitted as admission against the corporate defendant

Answer: holding that a fraudulent transfer claim against a corporate debtors control person belongs to the corporate debtor not to specific creditors


Question: Smith v. Southern Pacific Co., 187 F.2d 397, 402 (9th Cir.1951) ("The necessity of establishing in the complaints the relationship of the defendants, in this case an employment relationship, is at best a doubtful question of state law which should be tried in the state court and not determined in removal proceedings”). Federal district courts are not entitled to determine uncertain issues of law in order to ascertain whether there has been a fraudulent joinder, as those such issues must be determined in state court. See e.g., Green v. Amerada Hess Corp., 707 F.2d 201, 205 (5th Cir.1983) ("if there is even a possibility that a state court would find a cause of action stated ... then the federal court must [remand]”). 11 . See, e.g., Insinga v. LaBella, 845 F.2d 249, 254 (11th Cir.1988) 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that although the resident defendant had not been formally served prior to removal the resident defendant had made a voluntary appearance in state court and therefore jurisdiction was not proper under  1441b (B) holding that another states reservation of personal jurisdiction over a florida resident for the purpose of modifying its decree may last as long as the effectiveness of the decree and that no dueprocess violation occurs by the entry of a default modification against the florida resident if the florida resident was afforded proper notice (C) holding that once a plaintiff has pled facts in the complaint indicating that the statute of limitations is a complete or partial bar to an action it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to plead either in the complaint or in amendments to it facts establishing an exception to the affirmative defense (D) holding that were the court to find fraudulent joinder as to a nondiverse defendant on the basis of evidence equally dispositive of the liability of that defendant and a nondiverse defendant a refusal later in the proceedings to give judgment for the diverse defendant on the same grounds in turn would require the court to revisit a ruling that the nondiverse defendant was fraudulently joined (E) holding that fraudulent joinder required a finding that either there was no possibility that the plaintiff could prove a cause of action against the resident defendant or that the plaintiff fraudulently pled jurisdictional facts in order to subject that resident defendant to the jurisdiction of the state court

Answer:
holding that although the resident defendant had not been formally served prior to removal the resident defendant had made a voluntary appearance in state court and therefore jurisdiction was not proper under  1441b