context: Federal courts have heretofore operated by assuming the applicability of a habeas remedy in a case such as this without detaned analysis of the specific foundation for that remedy. The Sixth Circuit has issued a number of unpublished opinions citing Preiser as authority for the proposition that SS 2254 provides the remedy for a prisoner claiming that a violation of due process in a prison disciplinary proceeding has deprived him of sentence or good-time credits.
citation_a.signal: cf.
citation_a.parenthetical: following Preiser and holding that petitioner fafied to exhaust state remedies before filing petition under SS 2254
citation_a.sentence: Cf. Branham v. Koehler, No. 89-1709, 1989 WL 136116 (6th Cir. Nov.13, 1989) (following Preiser and holding that petitioner fafied to exhaust state remedies before filing petition under § 2254). These cases, whde not binding because unpublished, nevertheless indicate that the Sixth Circuit considers this matter resolved in light of Preiser,
citation_b.signal: no signal
citation_b.parenthetical: applying Preiser and holding Tennessee prisoner's challenge to early release date extension must be .made under SS 2254
citation_b.sentence: Carney v. Sundquist, No. 96-5320, 1997 WL 135619 (6th Cir. Mar.24, 1997) (perfunctorily applying Heck and Preiser to sentence credit claim); Barnes v. Lewis, No. 93-5698, 1993 WL 515483 (6th Cir. Dec. 10, 1993) (following Preiser); Pettigrew v. Bass, No. 92-5373, 1992 WL 245916 (6th Cir. Sept.29, 1992) (applying Preiser and holding Tennessee prisoner’s challenge to early release date extension must be .made under § 2254); Privett v. Pellegrin, No. 85-5049, 1986 WL 16899 (6th Cir. Apr. 17, 1986) (interpreting Preiser as holding that habeas petition seeking restoration of sentence-credits is governed by § 2254 exhaustion requirement).