findings of those grounds from ninety eight to twenty oku not enough for every period you want to because for example in the record below we don't know when the last stevie's court petition was denied and there seems to be some other gaps because the district court concentrated on the issue of whether there writ filed in may through july of one nine hundred ninety eight qualify for statutory tolling that's was i think the key issue follow and the key issue before your eyes because of that refers to turn over documents which were necessary to develop johnson's claims of prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel that's how the district court characterize writes the motion now where did the district court get the information to say it was necessary to develop claims of prosecutorial misconduct and in effect of the substance of counsel is that characterization of what the riff itself or was in other words was there some degree of specificity in the motion to explain why he was attempting to get the documents or is the record know if that were in the record that would make this case for me a lot cleaner a lot clearer not quite but the question what least one question before us is whether this cause for why you wanted particular documents and unless it was simply a motion to compel documents in the abstract seems to me it's relevant so you know what the asking for a certified copy of the specific documents that's terrific file i'd be happy to provide it to the court but it's not in the district court record well yeah but i understand if if you are going to rely on i couldn't you have done this sometime ago i think so you want i think it's  we might be willing to remain and to the district court and take a look at this thing what does it need to say in order for your client to be able to hound it for purposes of the statute of limitations total i think it must be directly connected to the later file writ in the superior court and is it enough if it says this is a motion to compel information to enable me to directly connected to the claims raised then i think it would qualify and how much obligation if any did he have in the district court to bring it forward and how much first filing was between angel my and my nine hundred ninety eight that most motions last rich requested the court to intervene in order of the sant the district attorney's office to turn over documents which petitioner had purchased from them under the freedom of information act of power for you that what he put in his motions was a explanation of why he needed the documents that is because he wanted to raise particular claims relating to in effect is prosecuted for misconduct what he was looking for was a police report by a detective code which he apparently knew what it contained so he already knew the facts alleged in the in the police report he didn't have a copy of it but he didn't need it to proceed sergeant mark out he told cody that he had made comments to petitioner which were out of the ordinary for sheriff personnel to be making to a witness bill cody wrote a report at the conclusion of the investigation that was never turned over to petitioners attorney same page and i try to figure out if there really is what he's seeking here and i couldn't tell maybe maybe it isn't maybe doesn't well he just didn't appear to be responding to our argument that he hadn't come forward and said what it was so you're right under the theory of one hundred the exhaustion he's not complying with twenty two forty four games as a technical are response what i want to understand you can vote the statute in seven what's the purpose you said it's to make him exhaust under federal hate these new see that's good not the not let me ask you the other way around what about a petition not a request for documents but a petition that raises a pretty lousy which is dismissed quickly does that count the very latest just two months into the statutory period giving him ten months to file a time petition when they feel i should leave where they allegedly taken away from ft i don't think those documents were ever taken away from him what was taken away from him what we probably could and one point that i want to make is the reason that we didn't obtain this and get it before in the district court is because the defendant was not even arguing that this documents qualified  raise along the way because the proposition that those don't told how they were safeway i'm sorry if it isn't in the petition that's where oh no no i'm not the no i'm saying that we don't go out of our way and on our own seek out those kinds of filings that don't raise the claim because they don't go in our opinion under the to do so and he was only arguing that this this document was ground force for equitable tolling he wasn't even saying that it was grounds for s tell us that it had anything to do with the timing until his third filing which was called objections to objections after we are proud our motion and our reply that was the first time that he gave any indication whatsoever t it was the district court that saw that information and thought that it was possible that it could be a statutory tolly ground and out of an abundance of caution found that it didn't toll for the same reasons that we're arguing here that it doesn't qualify under the two because