FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 15 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAMES BUSTAMANTE, No. 09-17879
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:08-cv-02105-JAM
v.
MEMORANDUM *
D. ADAMS, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 12, 2011 **
Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner James Bustamante appeals 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.
Bustamante contends that his federal habeas petition is not barred because
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
the one-year statute of limitations provided for by the Antiterrorism and Effective
Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) was not triggered until he discovered the factual
predicate for his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, which occurred when he
was denied parole at the age of 31 after serving more than 13 years of his sentence.
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 their legal
significance).
Bustamante’s motion for judicial notice is granted. See Smith v. Duncan,
297 F.3d 809, 815 (9th Cir. 2002) (judicial notice taken of relevant state court
documents with a direct relationship to appeal).
AFFIRMED.
2 09-17879