than in actions seeking relief against unconstitutional practices, policies and conduct manifest in state penal institutions. The rationale was articulated by the Supreme Court more than a decade ago: It is difficult to imagine an activity in which a State has a stronger interest, or one that is more intricately bound up with state laws, regulations, and procedures, than the administration of its prisons. * * * The strong considerations of comity that require giving a state court system that has convicted a defendant the first opportunity to' correct its own errors thus also require giving the States the first opportunity to correct the errors made in the internal administration of their prisons. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 491-92, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 1937-38, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973) (<HOLDING>). See also Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 103
holding that a state prisoner may not challenge the constitutionality of his conviction in a suit for damages under 42 usc  1983 holding that the district court mischaracterized a state prisoners  1983 claim as a petition for writ of habeas corpus because the prisoner did not attack his conviction challenge the fact or length of his confinement or seek immediate release from prison holding that a state prisoner may not circumvent exhaustion requirements of the habeas corpus laws by framing an action challenging the fact or duration of his physical imprisonment under 42 usc  1983 holding that a writ of habeas corpus is a state prisoners sole federal remedy for challenging the duration of his imprisonment in order to obtain a speedier release in the future holding that a state is not a person under 42 usc  1983