the plaintiff’s requested relief controls this distinction. Moreover, in Wolff, the Supreme Court adopted the approach of dividing the cases based on the requested relief and allowing claims to proceed as unexhausted section 1983 causes of action when such relief does not accelerate the prisoner’s release. The bright-line test, instead, focuses on whether the claim challenges a general rule or a procedure used in a single hearing. Focusing on the conduct challenged rather than the relief sought conflicts with Wolff because it requires exhaustion of state remedies for all “narrow” challenges to a single hearing even when the prisoner does not request, and is not entitled, to an earlier release from confinement. Even the Serio court acknowledges this outcome. Serio, 821 F.2d at 1118 (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, the Court never suggests that a
holding that anonymous letter was insufficient to entitle petitioner to hearing holding that challenges to an arrest warrant are not jurisdictional holding that time spent on a highly restricted appellate bond did not entitle a federal prisoner to sentencing credit holding that due process clause does not require a federal prisoner to receive credit for time spent on supervised release if release is revoked recognizing that some challenges to a single hearing do not entitle the prisoner to an accelerated release