in accordance with the underlying sentence.” Id. at 754-55, 124 S.Ct. 1303. The Court found that because the § 1983 claim at issue was not something on which habeas relief could be granted, it was proper. Taylor’s § 1983 claim is similar. If the district court ultimately both determines that Lantagne’s major misconduct proceeding against Taylor was in retaliation and voids the prison disciplinary proceeding, the decision will simply remove the disciplinary time Taylor has accrued, giving him a cleaner record before the parole board. Because the parole board still has complete discretion on whether or not to parole Taylor, his lack of the disciplinary time from this misconduct will not necessarily affect the duration of his confinement. See Wilkinson, 544 U.S. at 82, 125 S.Ct. 1242 (<HOLDING>) (second emphasis added). Because Taylor’s
holding actions filed one day late are barred holding that failure to demonstrate a causal connection is fatal to a  1983  cause of action holding that  1983 actions are barred if success in that action would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration recognizing that section 1983 claims against a state agency are barred by the eleventh amendment holding that statutes of limitation for bivens and  1983 actions are the same