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.

David K. Lewis, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment for defendants in his 42 U.S.C. 1983 action alleging that his due process rights were violated in connection with the confiscation of a television set. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291. We review de novo. Hawkins v. Risley, 984 F.2d 321, 323 (9th Cir.1993) (per curiam). We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment based on the doctrine of issue preclusion because Lewis's due process claims were previously litigated and decided on the merits in a state habeas proceeding. See In re Lewis, 03W0051B, slip op. at 1-2 (Cal.Super.Ct. March 12, 2004); Silverton v. Dep't of Treasury, 644 F.2d 1341, 1347 (9th Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>). The district court did not abuse its
Holding statements: (A) holding issue preclusion bars section 1983 plaintiff from relitigating fourth amendment issue decided in state court criminal proceeding (B) holding that aedpa limits a federal habeas court to the record before the state court where a claim has been adjudicated on the merits by the state court (C) holding that a habeas claim is procedurally barred where it was already raised on direct appeal and decided on the merits by this court (D) holding that the federal habeas corpus court could reach the merits of a due process claim even though there was no contemporaneous objection in state court trial where the state habeas corpus court reached the merits rather than rely on the procedural default defense (E) holding that a state habeas proceeding decided on the merits precluded a section 1983 action in federal court
(E)