in forma pauperis standing when appealing dismissal of a § 2254 petition is determined subject to Fed. R.App. 24(a) rather than under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (applicable to civil rights claims). That Court has not addressed this issue for § 2241 petitions, however. 4 . The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has issued a number of opinions both pre- and post-AEDPA, noting that the remedy for a prisoner claiming a violation of due process in a prison disciplinary context is a federal writ of habeas corpus. See, e.g., Stone-Bey v. Barnes, 120 F.3d 718, 721 (7th Cir.1997) (following Balisok and noting that prisoner could have filed a federal writ); Shephard v. Duckworth, No. 96-1890, 1997 WL 9774 at n. 2 (7th Cir. Dec.12, 1996) (<HOLDING>); Evans v. McBride, 94 F.3d 1062, 1063-64 (7th
holding that res judicata applies in deportation proceedings holding descamps and mathis divisibility analysis applies in immigration proceedings nationwide to the same extent that it applies in criminal sentencing proceedings holding  2254 applies to administrative proceedings holding clisby applies to  2255 proceedings holding that exclusionary rule applies to civil forfeiture proceedings