context: Such a rule is not inconsistent with our prior decisions, which have never expressly addressed the question, but point in the same general direction.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 801 F.2d 1080, 1102-03
citation_a.parenthetical: habeas not exclusive remedy where prisoners seek only to be moved from one location to another within a prison
citation_a.sentence: See Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1102-03 (9th Cir.1986) (habeas not exclusive remedy where prisoners seek only to be moved from one location to another within a prison), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1069, 107 S.Ct. 2462, 95 L.Ed.2d 871 (1987); Ybarra v. Reno Thunderbird Mobile Home Village, 723 F.2d 675, 682 (9th Cir.1984) (federal court may not rule on prisoner’s section 1983 claim where “[although he does not specifically request release, the finding of such declaratory relief in his favor would show that release was required”); Clutchette v. Procunier, 497 F.2d 809, 812-14 (9th Cir.1974) (prisoner may bring section 1983 action to challenge disciplinary procedures having only “speculative and incidental effect” on length of sentence without first exhausting state remedies), modified, 510 F.2d 613 (9th Cir.1975), rev’d on different grounds sub nom. Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 96 S.Ct. 1551, 47 L.Ed.2d 810 (1976).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 881 F.2d 719, 720, 722
citation_b.parenthetical: permitting section 1983 suit for deprivation of good-time credits to proceed where plaintiff no longer serving prison sentence
citation_b.sentence: See also Bergen v. Spaulding, 881 F.2d 719, 720, 722 (9th Cir.1989) (permitting section 1983 suit for deprivation of good-time credits to proceed where plaintiff no longer serving prison sentence).