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?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW . 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. 7 | . : 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 forreview. . | 1. Does Preiser’s holding that the restoration of time credits were not cognizable ina§ 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 for . 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. Parte 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” ina § 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? . i