“the facts necessary to state a claim for relief.” Gray, 518 U.S. at 162-63, 116 S.Ct. 2074. First, Davis stated that he “was denied his due process rights under Wolff ... to have witness [sic.].” Second, he stated that he was charged with battery of a non-inmate. And, third, if the state court had simply cite checked the case, the statute, and the regulation provided in Davis’ petition, and read those sources in conjunction with the rest of his state habeas petition, the legal theory and operative facts would have become clear: Davis was charged with assaulting a non-prisoner, a disciplinary hearing took place to deny him good-time credits, and, at that hearing, he was denied a witness in violation of his due process rights under Wolff. Compare Baldwin, 541 U.S. at 33, 124 S.Ct. 1347 (<HOLDING>). CONCLUSION By reading Davis’ pro se state
holding that utility customers mailing of a petition did not constitute the filing of the petition as filing was not effectuated until the petition was received by the clerk holding a petition unexhausted because the petition provides no citation of any case that might have alerted the court to the alleged federal nature of the claim and the petition does not contain a factual description supporting the claim citations omitted holding that the pendency of a petitioners federal habeas corpus petition does not divest a trial court of jurisdiction to address a pcra petition holding that a  2255 petition seeking only reinstatement of the right to a direct appeal does not render any later petition a second or successive petition under the aedpa holding that when a respondent fails to challenge factual allegations contained in a petition for the writ of mandamus the appellate court accepts as true the factual statements in the petition