different issues so it's unclear from wolf versus macdonnell alone what issue he's raising but then when he goes on to cite the california code of regulations that indicate the regulation that provides him the right to have a witness at a disciplinary hearing and he cites the regulation that gives the prison the right to revoke his good time credits based on the results of the disciplinary hearing i think it's clear what the factual basis is then he goes on to state that he throws out the date of january twenty third two thousand and two when the san joaquin county district attorney filed a complaint against him alleging battery b i agree and i agree that that it does not specifically state that on this specific date at this specific person i was denied the right to have a witness but he does lay out sufficient facts to put the court on notice about what the issue code of regulations sections that deal with the deprivation of good time credits due to the results of a disciplinary hearing and he's cite specifically to the california regulation which provides an inmate the right to call witnesses at a disciplinary hearing so i don't think there's any question about what type of proceeding this is then in the second part of his factual basis he does provide the date he does provide the offense he does provide that it i county so while i do agree that there are not a lot of specifics there is enough to exhaust the state remedies is not to put the court on notice as to what the issues are what their rights are and what he was deprived of and why it's a violation of the and then in the document what the factual allegations are are referred to actions by the district attorney not what happened at the prison disciplinary hearing there were there was a reference to he may have been there actually the s you would have to say you were at a disciplinary hearing you had a witness with relevant testimony you were denied by the prison that the opportunity to have that witness and not deny was not based on legitimate pea logical reason know the reasons why the the disciplinary officer denied that witness what was that witness's testimony that he was seeking relevant was that witness's testimony federal court it would probably survive a motion to dismiss however i believe that their proper standard under he vs is not simply you know this pleading you have to both allege your legal theory and sufficient facts to support that hearing i asked for a witness that witness had relevant testimony i asked for the witness the disciplinary officer denied my request and he said this is why and that amounts to a violation of my constitutional rights you had done all of those things that would have been enough facts to give the court the state court a sufficient opportunity to evaluate this kind but that did not happen here the district court carefully examined and quoted in its order t relevant facts that were before the state court and nowhere in those facts is there an allegation that he appeared at the disciplinary hearing on a particular date or any date at all and that he was denying a witness for say that the statement denied the right to have a witness read in harmony with the united states supreme court citation of will first be done and the california regulations involving and he specifically cites two i believe it's thirty three fifteen some division even specifically says that an inmate shall have the right to call a witness at a disciplinary hearing and then he also cites to the california code of regulation dealing  with deprivation or revocation of good time credits based on the result of a disciplinary hearing so while he doesn't specifically state it was a disciplinary hearing those three different citations all deal with  and prisons so i think that is addressed the date the date of the disciplinary hearing in question was january twenty fourth of two thousand and two and he cites the date of january twenty third of two thousand and two as when facts he's describing the dates he's describing the statute that is violated so when he describes what happened then as you say in superior court right correct but he's describing that under the facts just below  appalling facts disappointing facts correct and it's handwritten on the form that they get in prison to file the pro se pleadings and the prostate pleadings it says first what is your ground and he asks for supporting facts and in the supporting facts section he talks about the date january twenty third of two thousand and two when in fact the hearing was january twenty fourth of two thousand and two he talks about the  clear it does take a little bit of so you're saying it doesn't take too much of work to figure out what he's complaining about exactly