1107, 1110 (11th Cir.2006). Pursuant to § 1915A, a district court must dismiss a prisoner’s complaint if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) — (b)(1). A pro se complaint is held to a “less stringe nder § 1983, a plaintiff must show that he or she was deprived of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law.” Griffin v. City of Opa-Locka, 261 F.3d 1295, 1303 (11th Cir.2001). A habeas petition is the exclusive remedy for a prisoner who challenges the fact or duration of his confinement and seeks immediate or speedier release. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973); see Clark v. State of Ga. Pardons & Paroles Bd., 915 F.2d 636, 638 (11th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, a state prisoner’s § 1983 claim
holding that a state prisoner must bring his claim in habeas only if by prevailing he would necessarily prove the unlawfulness of his conviction or confinement 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 recent cases have established that habeas corpus relief is not limited to immediate release from illegal custody but that the writ is available as well to attack future confinement and obtain future releases holding that state prisoner attacking validity of fact or length of confinement on federal constitutional grounds is limited to habeas corpus remedy holding that petitioner could not challenge his conviction on the grounds that the indictment failed to charge an essential element of the crime through a writ of habeas corpus