Case Name: Vincent E. KEATES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jeanne S. WOODFORD, CDC, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-02-23
Citations: 221 F. App'x 613
Docket Number: No. 06-15369
Parties: Vincent E. KEATES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jeanne S. WOODFORD, CDC, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 221
Pages: 613–613

Head Matter:
Vincent E. KEATES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jeanne S. WOODFORD, CDC, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 06-15369.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 20, 2007 .
Filed Feb. 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.
Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
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.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.