Connelly
Connelly v. Mendoza-Powers
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
California state prisoner Ronald Connelly appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as untimely. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We review de novo, see Miles v. Prunty, 187 F.3d 1104, 1105 (9th Cir.1999), and we affirm.
The State contends that this court lacks jurisdiction because Connelly failed to obtain a Certificate of Appealability. This contention is unpersuasive. See Rosas v. Nielsen, 428 F.3d 1229, 1232 (9th Cir.2005) (per curiam).
Connelly first contends that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) does not apply to his petition. We disagree. See Davis v. Woodford, 446 F.3d 957, 960 (9th Cir.2006) (applying AEDPA to a claim regarding an *681 alleged breach of petitioner’s pre-AEDPA plea agreement).
Connelly next contends that his November 1, 2004, petition was timely filed because he did not discover the factual predicate to his claims, which relate to the alleged breach of his 1988 plea agreement, until 2004. We conclude, however, that the factual predicate to Connelly’s claims could have been discovered with due diligence no later than November 1, 1995. See…