Preiser v. Rodriguez , 411 U.S. 475, 487-88 (1973) held that claims seeking the restoration
of time credits were not cognizable in a § 1983 action, making a habeas corpus the only avenue
for relief.

Both the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and the Third Circuit 's
application of Preiser to this case presents the first of two questions for review.

1. Does Preiser's holding that the restoration of time credits were not cognizable in a § 1983
action persist when there is a direct civil rights challenge of an unconstitutional legislation,
making a habeas corpus the only avenue for relief?

Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 158-60 (1908) held that a private party would be treated as
"persons " under § 1983, allowing suit to be filed in the official capacity if the party is sued tor
declaratory and prospective relief, and if the party violated federal law, suit would be treated as
actions against a state.

The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey 's non-application of Ex
Young, aided by the Third Circuit not considering the "persons " argument, present the
second of two questions for review.

2. Does Ex Parte Young's holding that a private party can be treated as a "person " in a § 1983
action stand when the private party is a state officer being sued for prospective injunctive
relief due to an ongoing violation of federal law and civil rights?

Does Preiser's holding that the restoration of time credits were not cognizable in a § 1983 action persist when there is a direct civil rights challenge of an unconstitutional legislation, making a habeas corpus the only avenue for relief?