With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". a writ of habeas corpus in federal court. Id. at 484-87. Recently, in Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 117 S.Ct. 1584, 137 L.Ed.2d 906 (1997), the Supreme Court applied the reasoning set forth in Heck to a § 1983 case in which the underlying proceeding was a prison administrative hearing that resulted in the plaintiffs loss of good time credits. Edwards, 117 S.Ct. at 1584. Edwards held that an allegation of procedural defects in a prison disciplinary hearing does “imply the invalidity of the punishment,” and as such, a § 1983 lawsuit cannot proceed without a finding from another forum that the underlying proceeding and punishment were invalid. Id. 117 S.Ct. at 1588; see also Clarke v. Stalder, 121 F.3d 222, 226 (5th Cir.1997); Burnell v. Coughlin, 975 F.Supp. 473, 477 (W.D.N.Y. 1997) (<HOLDING>). Therefore plaintiffs § 1983 action regarding

A: holding that prison disciplinary hearing committee members are entitled to qualified immunity
B: holding that a petition for review is an adequate substitute for habeas corpus
C: holding that the proper procedures for challenging the results of a prison disciplinary hearing are appeal administrative review collateral attack or habeas corpus
D: holding that a writ of habeas corpus cannot be used to review the weight of evidence
C.