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: Consider Input: 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

Output: recognizing first amendment retaliation right

Input: Consider Input: to landslide, even though earth movement was the most immediate cause). We therefore conclude that this is a case of multiple causation. B. We must now determine whether the deterioration or the fungicide manufacturers' failure to warn is the "proximate efficient cause" of the damage to Berry's irrigation pipes. In Sabella, the California Supreme Court defined "proximate efficient cause" both as "the one that sets others in motion" and as "the predominating or moving efficient cause." Sabella, 27 Cal.Rptr. at 695, 377 P.2d at 895; see Garvey, 257 Cal.Rptr. at 296, 770 P.2d at 708 ("Sabella defined 'efficient proximate cause' alternatively as the 'one that sets others in motion' and as 'the predominating or moving efficient cause.'") (citations omitted); Howell, 267 Cal.Rptr. at 716 (<HOLDING>); Brian Chuchua's Jeep, 13 Cal.Rptr.2d at 445
Holding statements: (A) recognizing the existence of purely jurisdictional elements (B) recognizing existence of two tests (C) recognizing first two exceptions (D) recognizing that the existence of an agency relationship is ordinarily a question of fact (E) recognizing the existence of the special relationship

Output: recognizing the existence of purely jurisdictional elements

Input: Consider Input: the delay outweigh the interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. A district court is "required to set out its reasons for granting an 'ends of justice' continuance" to provide a record for appellate review, otherwise "the time is not excludible." United States v. Brooks, 697 F.2d 517, 520 (3d Cir.1982). Additionally, once a district court grants a continuance we have "strongly urged" district courts "not to wait and rely on counsel to inform them when defendants are ready to go to trial." United States v. Lattany, 982 F.2d 866, 883 (3d Cir.1992). Here, the district court ruled that this was a complex case because of the number of defendants, and the fact that the indictment contained fifty separate charges. See United States v. Fields, 39 F.3d 439, 444 (3d Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). Although Gutierrez attempts to refute that
Holding statements: (A) holding that speedy trial act requires that an ends of justice continuance be specifically limited in time (B) holding that fivemonth openended continuance based on ends of justice did not violate speedy trial act (C) holding that where the case is technically not closed and the ends of justice may best be served by the admission of crucial evidence it is an abuse of the trial courts discretion to deny the introduction of such evidence (D) holding that an ends of justice continuance may be appropriate where the case is unusual or complex (E) holding that an ends of justice continuance is proper when a case is complex and involves multiple codefendants and multiple overt acts occurring in multiple states and in which the complexity outweighs the interests of individual defendants
Output: holding that speedy trial act requires that an ends of justice continuance be specifically limited in time