Instructions: 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: supervisory official may be liable because he or she created a policy or custom under which unconstitutional practices occurred, or allowed such a policy or custom to continue. [4] [A] supervisory official may be personally liable if he or she was grossly negligent in managing subordinates who caused the unlawful condition or event. [5] [Supervisory liability may be imposed where an official demonstrates "gross negligence" or "deliberate indifference" to the constitutional rights of inmates by failing to act on information indicating that unconstitutional practices are taking place. Wright, 21 F.3d at 501; see Colon v. Coughlin, 58 F.3d 865, 873 (2d Cir.1995); Williams v. Smith, 781 F.2d 319, 323-24 (2d Cir.1986) (citations omitted); McCann v. Coughlin, 698 F.2d 112, 125 (2d Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>). A review of the plaintiffs complaint reveals
Holding statements: (A) holding that a defendant is not entitled to relief from default judgment because notice to an attorney of filing of motions and orders is constructive notice to the client even when the client did not have actual notice (B) holding that a defendant is entitled to credit only for periods in which defendant is in actual or constructive control of jail or prison officials (C) holding that because the hospital had no actual or constructive notice that the parties were separated at the time services were rendered the separation exception did not apply (D) holding that defendant coughlin had actual or constructive notice of unconstitutional procedures and therefore could not escape personal responsibility (E) holding trial court and appellate court erred in requiring defendant to show he had meritorious defense when record established that defendant had filed answer but had no actual or constructive notice of trial setting
Output:
holding that a defendant is not entitled to relief from default judgment because notice to an attorney of filing of motions and orders is constructive notice to the client even when the client did not have actual notice