claims because the right to DNA testing was not available at the time of his 1988 conviction. The court rejected the divestment of jurisdiction argument on state law grounds. Finally, the court found that Durr’s as-applied challenge failed for the same reasons as his equal protection, Eighth Amendment, and due process claims. The district court agreed that Durr would be irreparably harmed absent the stay, but found that the State is harmed when the execution of valid criminal judgment is delayed. As for the public interest, the court found that the public interest in this case would be best served “by deferring to [the State’s] efforts to ensure the integrity of the criminal justice system because [Durr] ha[d] not carried his burden of demonstrating constituti , 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974) (<HOLDING>); Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct.
holding that inmates serving life terms were not entitled to goodtime credits because state statute expressly foreclosed the granting of goodtime credits to such inmates holding that depriving inmates of statecreated right to goodtime credits in prison disciplinary proceedings requires due process holding that state prisoners challenges to revocation of their goodtime credits through disciplinary proceedings could be brought as a  1983 action because inmates sought only a declaration that the disciplinary proceedings were invalid and thus attacked only wrong procedures and not wrong result holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction to review state disciplinary proceedings against attorney holding that state prisoners challenges to the constitutionality of prison disciplinary proceedings that led to the deprivation of goodtime credits fell within the core of habeas