rev[oked] [Plaintiff's good time credits] for no rule violation or [m]isbehavior pursuant to the provisions and in accordance with [New York] Corr[ection] Laws ยงยง 803 and 805 . . . ."), 6 ("[P]laintiff committed no rule violations[] and[] had no misbehavior reports[] that could be considered bad behavior to warrant the []wanton taking of [P]laintiff's earned good time credits.").) See Edwards, 520 U.S. at 646 (determining that the plaintiff's claim that he was "completely denied the opportunity to put on a defense" would "if established, necessarily imply the invalidity of the deprivation of his good-time credits"); Sira v. Morton, 380 F.3d 57, 67 (2d Cir. 2004) (noting that had the revocation of the plaintiff's good time credits not been overturned, the plaintiff's procedural challenge, including that the plaintiff received inadequate notice of the charges against him, would have "necessarily . . . implicated the invalidity of the loss of his good[]time credits" (citation omitted)); Riddick v. Semple, No. 18-CV-313, 2019 WL 203118, at *2-3 (D. Conn. Jan. 15, 2019) (determining that the plaintiff's allegations, including that he was punished for violating "vague and overbroad prison rules" for which he was inadequately noticed, would "call[] into question" the disciplinary finding at issue); Alexander v. Selsky, No. 02-CV-0589, 2004 WL 941803, at *3 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 2004) (determining that the plaintiff's claims that he was denied the right to view certain pieces of evidence, including unredacted relevant reports, would, if successful, "have an effect on the duration of his overall confinement"); Garcia v. Payne, No. 97-CV-880, 1998 WL 50207, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 1998) (finding that claimed due process violations, including the failure to provide written documentation of evidence against the plaintiff and denial of the opportunity to challenge that evidence, were "sufficiently serious" to be barred by Edwards).