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.