[ Scalia ]
[ Ginsburg ]
GARY EDWARDS and TANA WOOD, PETITIONERS v. JERRY
on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit
I agree that Balisok's claim is not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to the extent that it is "based on allegations of deceit and bias on the part of the decisionmaker," ante, at 6; those allegations, as the Court explains, "necessarily imply the invalidity of the punishment imposed," ante, at 7; see ante, at 5-6. Balisok alleged other procedural defects, however, including the failure of prison official Edwards "to specify what facts and evidence supported the finding of guilt." App. to Pet. for Cert. F-3 (District Court order); see Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 564-565 (1974) (inmate subjected to discipline is entitled to a written statement of reasons and evidence relied on). A defect of this order, unlike the principal "deceit and bias" procedural defect Balisok alleged, see ante, at 5, would not necessarily imply the invalidity of the deprivation of his good time credits, and therefore is immediately cognizable under §1983. On this understanding, I join the Court's opinion.