With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Committee, both with respect to why the hearing was convened and how the hearing was conducted, are essentially claims that his good time credits have been wrongly withheld as a result of the TAC determination and that his continued confinement as a result of that determination is wrongful. Plaintiff may not challenge a loss of good time credits in a § 1983 action, however; he must do so instead in the context of a habeas corpus proceeding. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973). In addition, Preiser requires as a general rule that in this type of ease a plaintiff must have exhausted available state remedies before the federal habeas action is commenced. Preiser, 411 U.S. at 500; see also Ellman v. Davis, 42 F.3d 144, 148-49 (2d Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied 515 U.S. 1118, 115 S.Ct. 2269,

A: holding that a prisoners failure to pursue an appeal in state court is a procedural bar to federal habeas relief unless the petitioner shows both cause for failing to bring the state claim  and actual prejudice from the failure to consider his federal claims
B: holding that a state procedural default will not bar consideration of a federal claim on habeas review unless the last state court rendering a judgment clearly and expressly stated that its judgment rested on a state procedural bar
C: holding that if the state court addresses both the procedural default and the merits of a federal claim in the alternative a federal court should apply the state procedural bar and decline to reach the merits of the claim
D: holding that a federal court may excuse a state habeas petitioners procedural default if the petitioner can show cause for the failure to raise the claim and prejudice resulting from such failure
A.