Jeffrey Ford v. Fernando Gonzalez, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 13459

Ford, a California state prisoner, challenges dismissal of three §2254 claims as untimely under AEDPA.
Ford contends the start of the one-year period should be delayed because Goins allegedly received benefits for testifying against him.
Goins testified at Ford’s trial; defense noted possible deals but the court and prosecutor disputed any link between Goins’s purported benefits and her testimony.
Beverly Ford, Goins’s sister and Ford’s wife, lived with Goins and her mother and actively pressed Goins regarding Ford’s case, potentially aiding discovery of facts.
Ford filed a 2005 original and a 2006 amended petition; state habeas proceedings culminated in a 2009 California Supreme Court decision; districts court lifted stay in 2009 and dismissed claims 2–4 as untimely.
The district court held the factual predicate could have been discovered at trial with due diligence, so §2244(d)(1)(D) did not provide a later accrual date, making claims 2–4 time-barred; the court also denied equitable tolling.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §2244(d)(1)(D) delayed accrual applies.	Ford asserts due diligence could have uncovered Goins’s deal at trial.	Gonzalez contends the facts were discoverable with reasonable diligence, so accrual happened at trial.	No delayed accrual; timely start by trial end; claims time-barred.
Whether Ford is entitled to equitable tolling.	Ford argues Brady evidence suppression constitutes extraordinary circumstance.	Gonzalez maintains no extraordinary circumstance; Ford did not exercise reasonable diligence.	Equitable tolling denied; no extraordinary circumstance and lack of diligence.

Quezada v. Scribner, 611 F.3d 1165 (9th Cir. 2010) (provides framework for discovery of Brady material affecting timeliness)
Schlueter v. Varner, 384 F.3d 69 (3d Cir. 2004) (due diligence standard for §2244(d)(1)(D); consideration of petitioner’s circumstances)
Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (U.S. 1999) (Brady material and reliance on government's duty to disclose)
Bagley v. U.S., 473 U.S. 667 (U.S. 1985) (duty to disclose favorable evidence independent of defense request)
Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (U.S. 1995) (materiality and suppression of exculpatory evidence)
Lee v. Lampert, 653 F.3d 929 (9th Cir. 2011) (AEDPA timing and de novo review standards)
Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (U.S. 2010) (equitable tolling and extraordinary circumstances standard)
Quezada v. Scribner, 611 F.3d 1165 (9th Cir. 2010) (timeliness under Brady material discovery)
Daniels v. Uchtman, 421 F.3d 490 (7th Cir. 2005) (timeliness when witness recants or undisclosed information emerges)
Slutzker v. Johnson, 393 F.3d 373 (3d Cir. 2004) (statute of limitations begin when information becomes known)