With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the duration of his confinement. Id. at 646, 647, 117 S.Ct. at 1588. Thus, claims brought by state prisoners are not cognizable under § 1983 if they necessarily invalidate, directly or indirectly, an underlying criminal conviction or period of confinement, even if they allege only procedural violations and seek damages only for the procedural violation and not for the substantive result. Only if such claims are purely procedural, as in Wolff, where the alleged procedural defects — lack of advance written notice of the charges and a written statement of the basis of the decision — or the outcome of the action, would not necessarily invalidate an underlying conviction or sentence, will they be cognizable under § 1983. See e.g., Jenkins v. Haubert, 179 F.3d 19, 21 (2d Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). 10 . It could be argued that Heck bars a §

A: holding that an inmates mandamus petition challenging a disciplinary report imposing 15 days disciplinary confinement was a collateral criminal proceeding because the disciplinary confinement limited petitioners ability to earn gain time
B: holding that heck and edwards do not bar a prisoners  1983 claim alleging bias by the prisons hearing officer in a disciplinary proceeding affecting only the conditions but not the fact or duration of confinement
C: holding that a student has a right to counsel in a university disciplinary hearing where there is a pending criminal charge for the same incident but noting that the attorneys role at the disciplinary hearing is limited to safeguarding the students rights at the criminal proceeding and not to affecting the outcome of the disciplinary hearing
D: holding that the possibility that a prisoners claim had the potential to affect the duration of his confinement was too attenuated from this proceeding to state a claim under  2254
B.