help me with something on this i agree with you that the core of the claim is due process and i agree with you that we don't talk in advance and s have no idea what my colleagues think i agree with you that the change in the status of his custody is significant they forget the verbal formula significant deprivation of liberty compared to what he could expect  life without parole prisoner even my problem is this if if there's no automatic right to discovery i don't understand how he would get a right to compel production of the inspections went from before he moved into the cell your honor i think we get that because the california  regulation and the state prison policy has made clear that in this very specific context which isn't just sort of generalized discovery to prove one's not innocent this very specific context the prisoners need access but primarily the second sentence which says such inspections are required and must be recorded the requirement of inspections is critical here your honor and then the next sentence which says the purposes of such inspections is to fix responsibility in the absence of responsibility or the absence of responsibility for security and safety hazards and serious contraband found in a cell all true enough however i still don't see the right to discovery well i think it  from that provision and from the prison policy which is a page seventy nine of the record which says a complete search an inspection of each cell prior to occupancy of by new inmate those requirements protect the prison from inmates hiding and purposely weaving over and obtaining custody when they move into a cell of contraband but i still don't see the part where it says it has to be given to the prisoner moreover since it's a regulation and not a that it's not a federal constitutional provision or federal law i still don't see where it necessarily follows from that that the if the judge had inspected in camera the inspection slips and had said oh there's one here that says he looked up at the like picture and it's clear or he took at that out and got the bugs out of it and there put it back in the nothing else in it that would obviously tend to exonerate your client from hiding contraband there but i didn't see any whiff of a brady type claim here candidly honor that wasn't briefed and i don't know the answer the question whether brady attaches to these types of hearings but i do think that when you talk about procedural due process in a meaningful opportunity to be heard that's a federal constitutional right and so i think even that before you have been made and what is your best case or best argument for why claim preclusion should not apply here it's the following your honor he wasn't allowed to press the claim deprivation of due process in the denial of a meaningful hearing it was just ignored by the courts and so i think when one mounts a claim like that and the courts just ignore it you can't say that it's one that could have and should have been raised and so that it merges with the judgment it isn't isn't that an error in the previous proceedings that could or should have been brought to the attention of the state courts as the case worked its way up but that is that if there was an error in proceeding number one our client could have now whether there was an opportunity in theory to bring that claim in the first proceeding and there was no opportunity because although he did mention it the state court saw its role as being focused on one very very narrow future here the evidence i would have had is the inspection slip when i went in showing they didn't look at the light fixture and since they won't give it to me that's why i have no evidence instead of some evidence due process to deny my claim on that ground or set the theory yes in part that's part of it but i also think i would say that it's not just that had i have it there would be no some no at no evidence at all it's that had he been given because in order to fix responsibility he has he believe he has to have the ability to say i didn't do it you didn't search the cell beforehand i've only been in here seven months it was there before i was i ever was in the south and you didn't search the cell as you showed up so you can't fix the asked for the inspection certificate he did ask for a reason given for not giving it to him you know it was not just said your hearing officer just said disallowed and that is there anything about these inspections certificates such that giving copies to prisoners would undermine security i believe that seems a very reasonable and logical and i don't know where i don't know but there isn't anything in the record about that do we know that there was a written documentation if a search happens is a requirement that it be documented in writing i mean it would seem logical but is there any regulation that requires the search to have been documented and then how long is that be retained is there anything in the record on custody status and from that it's the duty of the president to not unfairly damage that harm and so under those principles he litigated that issue that primary right to the superior court he in fact states in his federal opposition that he did raise the witnesses were after hearing i believe i there is nothing in the record to reflect that there was a hearing so i don't know if there was or not what was reflected is the that the superior court decision which states that there was some evidence to support well what what i'm puzzled by i'm looking at here eighty which is a report by a correctional officer asa vater oh who was the investigator case but then he also asked for witnesses for hearing and i don't know but i'm not sure where that takes us because his later claim is that he wasn't clear from all reports and pertinent this is just not really where the courts should be getting into the news that because of these problems with well did he say he says he did get all the documents he wanted the done something which is not my catch twenty two problem the argument for why we shouldn't be able to do anything is that we don't have the records and the argument for why we don't have the records is you don't need the records because you shouldn't get into anything and the  prisoner saying i want the records i said i didn't put that piece of metal up there and an inspection would show that the inspections have to be recorded so there must be a record and no reason has been given why neither the prisoner nor the court can see the record that maybe they didn't get around to producing or they may not be retained for a long period of time i can make speculations in favor of the person along those lines i can make speculations and favor of the prison that oh my gosh this record shows something that hurts our case we'd better not produce it i understand your honor and i think that's why the courts have been very clear in finding that state prison regulations and state laws do not add on to the constitutional requirements of due process of the supreme court outlined in the due process consideration could arise if he's not given a fair hearing because there are records that shows innocence and he's not provided with copies i think that that might be the case in a situation where there was not some evidence to support his decision but again in this case it three separate california courts have found that there was some evidence to support his claim and i could also point you to superintendent the hill which i think has very similar facts where in that case there was an injured inmates and a prison guard it would hurt other guys are running away that's that's evidence it's not direct evidence it's circumstantial evidence but the standard jury instruction is once as good as the other exactly and i would submit the same here i don't care what the circumstantial evidence is well it's hi already adjudicated this issue they have found some evidence and i think that that is why at this point he's precluded from raising that raising that issue in federal court and he he chose to  prison takes upon itself that they don't intend to give rise to a private cause of action and i would and i would say that in response your honor that when you take this policy with the california regular gave you an emergent together if it's responsibilities to be fixed to someone the p