Fernandez v. United States · ¶48

In any event, the difference in relief does not render Preiser irrelevant. The remedies were not identical in Preiser either: The prisoner sought an injunction under § 1983 for the restoration of good-time credits, rather than habeas relief. This formal distinction did not change our analysis; what mattered was that Preiser brought a claim “close to the core of habeas corpus.” 411 U. S., at 489. When, as here, a prisoner “attack[s] the validity of his confinement” and “seeks either immediate release from that confinement or the shortening of its duration,” his claim belongs under the umbrella of the postconviction statutes. Ibid.

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.