Court Opinion

ID: 9433461
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:40:18.845383+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:41.709634
License: Public Domain

Justice Ginsburg,
with whom Justice Souter and Justice Breyer join,
concurring.
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 648; those allegations, as the Court explains, “necessarily imply the invalidity of the punishment imposed,” ibid.; see ante, at 646-648. 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 646-647, would not neces*650sarily 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.