Opinion
No. 06-15369.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed February 23, 2007.
Daniel Horowitz, Esq., Oakland, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Juliet B. Haley, Esq., AGCA — Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Claudia Wilken, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-05-03959-CW.
Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
California state prisoner Vincent E. Keates appeals from the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as time-barred. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
Keates contends that the district court erred in determining that his petition was time-barred because he has not had an administrative hearing and because he suffers a "new due process violation every day that [he] is illegally incarcerated." We disagree and affirm the district court's order. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1); Redd v. McGrath, 343 F.3d 1077, 1083 (9th Cir. 2003) ("limitations period begins to run when the new evidence should have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence").
AFFIRMED.