JUSTICE COOK delivered the opinion of the court:

Plaintiff, James Armstrong, an inmate at the TammsCorrectional Center (Tamms), filed a pro se amended complaint(complaint) for mandamus in the Sangamon County circuit court onJuly 23, 2001. The complaint sought to compel defendant, DonaldSnyder, Jr., Director of the Illinois Department of Corrections(DOC), to expunge parts of plaintiff's disciplinary record. Plaintiff's complaint alleged that the discipline was imposedwithout due process and in violation of statute and DOC regulations. Defendant filed a motion pursuant to section 2-615 of theCode of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2000)) todismiss plaintiff's complaint. The trial court granted defendant's motion to dismiss and ordered the cause stricken onFebruary 5, 2002. Plaintiff appeals, arguing that the trialcourt erred in dismissing his complaint. We reverse and remand. A section 2-615 motion to dismiss challenges the legalsufficiency of the complaint. People ex rel. Ryan v. Telemar-keting Associates, Inc., 198 Ill. 2d 345, 351, 763 N.E.2d 289,293 (2001). Dismissal pursuant to section 2-615 of the Code isonly proper where, when construing the allegations of the complaint in the light most favorable to plaintiff, it clearlyappears that no set of facts can be proved under the pleadingswhich will entitle the plaintiff to recover. People ex rel.Ryan, 198 Ill. 2d at 351, 763 N.E.2d at 293. Exhibits attachedto the complaint are considered part of the complaint, and wheninconsistencies between the factual allegations and the exhibitarise, the exhibit controls over the factual allegation in thepleading. Mars, Inc. v. Heritage Builders of Effingham, Inc.,327 Ill. App. 3d 346, 355, 763 N.E.2d 428, 437 (2002). Ourreview is de novo. People ex rel. Ryan, 198 Ill. 2d at 351, 763N.E.2d at 293.

In this case, plaintiff's complaint alleged he wasdenied due process at several different disciplinary hearings. The Supreme Court has held that prisoners are entitled to acertain amount of process in disciplinary proceedings, that being(1) notice of the disciplinary charges at least 24 hours prior tothe hearing; (2) when consistent with institutional safety andcorrectional goals, an opportunity to call witnesses and presentdocumentary evidence in his defense; and (3) a written statementby the fact finder of the evidence relied on and the reasons forthe disciplinary action. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-66, 41 L. Ed. 2d 935, 955-56, 94 S. Ct. 2963, 2978-79 (1974). DOC rules also require that prisoners receive process in disciplinary hearings consistent with the principals enunciated inWolff. See 20 Ill. Adm. Code