context: We reject the state's contention that Jensen's claims do not involve the deprivation of substantial rights protected by the section 2254 habeas corpus mechanism.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 93 S.Ct. 1827, 1835-1836
citation_a.parenthetical: state prisoners' allegations that corrections officials acted unconstitutionally in depriving them of good time credits deemed "just as close to the core of habeas corpus as an attack on the prisoner's conviction"
citation_a.sentence: See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 487-489, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 1835-1836, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973) (state prisoners’ allegations that corrections officials acted unconstitutionally in depriving them of good time credits deemed “just as close to the core of habeas corpus as an attack on the prisoner’s conviction”).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 418 U.S. 555, 555-558
citation_b.parenthetical: when a state created a statutory right to good time credit, prisoner's interest is embraced within Fourteenth Amendment "liberty" to entitle him to those minimum procedures appropriate under the circumstances and required by the Due Process Clause
citation_b.sentence: See also Wolff v. McDonnell, supra, 418 U.S. at 555-558, 94 S.Ct. at 2974-2975 (when a state created a statutory right to good time credit, prisoner’s interest is embraced within Fourteenth Amendment “liberty” to entitle him to those minimum procedures appropriate under the circumstances and required by the Due Process Clause).