Given the task definition and input, reply with output. 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.

raises a novel issue of state law. "[District courts possess discretion in determining whether and when to entertain an action under the Declaratory Judgment Act, even when the suit otherwise satisfies subject matter jurisdictional prerequisites." Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277, 281-82, 115 S.Ct. 2137, 2140, 132 L.Ed.2d 214 (1995) (citing Brillhart v. Excess Ins. Co., 316 U.S. 491, 62 S.Ct. 1173, 86 L.Ed. 1620 (1942)). In declaratory judgment actions, "[T]he normal principle that federal courts should adjudicate claims within their jurisdiction yields to considerations of practicality and wise judicial administration." Id. at 288, 115 S.Ct. at 2143. Here, there is no pending state court proceeding on the same issues involved in this action. Cf. id. at 289-90, 115 S.Ct. at 2144 (<HOLDING>). Wiggins contends that this action presents an
Holding statements: (A) holding that pursuit of a parallel state court lawsuit involving claims and parties common to the federal action does not justify the district courts intervention in state court proceedings (B) holding that the district court act ed within its bounds in staying this action for declaratory relief where parallel proceedings presenting opportunity for ventilation of the same state law issues were underway in state court even when the federal proceeding began before the state one (C) holding that allegation of inadequate ventilation in prison may state a claim for relief (D) holding that the district court in that case properly abstained from hearing a case brought under the declaratory judgment act as a matter of its discretion where a parallel or concurrent action in state court was already underway (E) holding that the district court had discretion to stay declaratory judgment action where parallel proceedings presenting opportunity for ventilation of the same state law issues were underway in state court
holding that pursuit of a parallel state court lawsuit involving claims and parties common to the federal action does not justify the district courts intervention in state court proceedings