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. The four incorrect answers are other holding statements. You should find the correct option. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.

Input: Consider Input: otherwise nonremovable claims or causes of action, the entire case may be removed and the district court may determine all issues therein, or, in its discretion, may remand all matters in which State law predominates. 28 U.S.C. 1441(c). While the amended third-party complaint alleges a claim involving a federal question against the Chase Defendants, the Circuits are split on whether section 1441(c) permits removal by a third-party defendant. Compare Lewis v. Windsor Door Co., 926 F.2d 729, 733 (8th Cir.1991) ('We do not ... believe 1441(c) was intended to effect removal of a suit, not otherwise within federal jurisdiction, because of the introduction of a third-party claim." (internal quotations omitted)) and First Nat'l Bank of Pulaski v. Curry, 301 F.3d 456, 465 (6th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>) with Carl Heck Eng'rs, Inc. v. Lafourche
Holding statements: (A) holding that review of an original removal decision and a subsequent removal order are distinct (B) holding that removal under section 1441c may only be done by the original defendant (C) holding that 1441c does not allow the remand of claims that are not separate and independent (D) recognizing that 1441c limits removal to situations in which a federal question is joined with a separate and independent claim of a nonfederal nature (E) holding that any defect in removal procedure must be cured within the 30day removal period or it is fatal to the removal and defendants failure to attach exhibits to the notice of removal within that time required remand

Output: (B)

Input: Consider Input: constructive, or judicially imposed lien, or (4) asserted against real or personal property. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. 51.903; Cardenas v. Wilson, 428 S.W.3d 130, 132 (Tex. App.Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, no pet.) (noting that 51.903 inquiry into mechanic's lien determines only that mechanic's lien is provided by Texas law, not whether the underlying mechanic's lien was valid). If the motion requires greater inquiry, then it is a motion for declaratory judgment. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. 37.004(a) (West 2015); State Bar of Tex. v. Heard, 603 S.W.2d 829, 833 (Tex. 1980) ("We look to the substance of a plea for relief to determine the nature of the pleading, not merely at the form of title given to it."); Nguyen, 2016 WL 2343893, at *2 (citing Becker, 2010 WL 877569, at *2-3 (<HOLDING>)). A motion for declaratory judgment must be
Holding statements: (A) holding that in ruling on a motion for summary judgment the trial court is limited to the grounds raised in the motion (B) holding motion requesting more relief than section 51903 provides was motion for declaratory judgment (C) holding that motion accepting judgment but requesting findings of fact and conclusions of law was not directed against the judgment (D) holding that substance of motion to extend time was a section 1301f motion rather than a section 1301g motion and that trial court did not abuse discretion in denying the section 1301f motion (E) holding that the courts denial of either a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment is not a final judgment and is not reviewable

Output: (B)

Input: Consider Input: the badly injured Rivera to the station house. Once at the station house, Vidal stood by and watched as Rivera was assaulted further. From these facts, a reasonable juror could have concluded that Vidal willfully associated himself with the violation of Rivera's civil rights and participated in this violation as something he wished to bring about, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 242 and 2. Turning to Count Four, Vidal repeats that the evidence showed only that he failed to intervene while other officers beat Rivera. He suggests that mere inaction is insufficient to merit supervisory liability for a violation of 242, and that it was not apparent that he was acting unlawfully by failing to intervene. See United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259, 265, 117 S.Ct. 1219, 137 L.Ed.2d 432 (1997) (<HOLDING>). He further argues that his failure to
Holding statements: (A) holding that there is no constitutional right to appeal a criminal conviction (B) holding that criminal liability for deprivation of a constitutional right under 242 requires that the unlawfulness be apparent under preexisting law (C) holding that liability under 1983 can be established by showing that the defendants either personally participated in a deprivation of the plaintiffs rights or caused such a deprivation to occur (D) holding that liability under 1983 requires a causal link to and direct responsibility for the deprivation of rights (E) holding that a claim for municipal liability under 1983 requires inter alia proof of an underlying constitutional violation
Output: (B)