Case Name: Charles JOHNSON, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. James WALKER, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-07-15
Citations: 443 F. App'x 251
Docket Number: No. 10-16996
Parties: Charles JOHNSON, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. James WALKER, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 443
Pages: 251–252

Head Matter:
Charles JOHNSON, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. James WALKER, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 10-16996.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 12, 2011.
Filed July 15, 2011.
Charles Johnson, Jr., Represa, CA, pro se.
Jill M. Thayer, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Charles Johnson, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition as untimely. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
Johnson contends that his federal habe-as petition is not barred because the one-year statute of limitations provided for by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act was not triggered until he discovered the factual predicate for his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, which occurred when he realized that (1) he had a meritorious claim for challenging his prior convictions, and (2) his sentencing judge should have recused himself. This contention lacks merit. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(D); see also Hasan v. Galaza, 254 F.3d 1150, 1154 n. 3 (9th Cir.2001) (stating that the statute of limitations begins to run when the prisoner knows, or through diligence could discover, the important facts, not when the prisoner recognizes them legal significance).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.