Whether the state courts wrongly misconstrued the writ of mandate for a habeas petition and denied the petitioner a hearing on his substantial claim for relief

question presented to the United states Supreme Court, is that the State Courts wrongly misconstrued the writ of mandate for a habeas Petition, and ruled there was no documentary evidence to support his Claim for relief, Petitioner attached a Copy of the administrative Appeal as an Exhibit, showing he filed the appeal, which was referred to in the Statement of Claim, and that is to be considered proof of the Appeal, which is all he must do, and the Respondent had a ministerial duty required under the law to answer it, then return the Appeal within the time constraints, pursuant to the cited Regulations above, however failed to do so. This question presented to review by this high Court must be that the State Courts refused to give Petitioner a hearing on this substantial claim for relief.