Mark Harris v. Michael McDonald

MEMORANDUM

Mark A. Harris appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as untimely under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”). 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . Because the district court erroneously concluded that Harris failed to exercise due diligence in pursuing the factual predicate of his habeas claim, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Where a habeas petition alleges newly discovered evidence, the one-year statute of limitations under AEDPA begins to run on the date on which the factual predicate of the. claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence. Id. § 2244(d)(1)(D); McQuiggin v. Perkins, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 1924, 1929 , 185 L.Ed.2d 1019 (2013). “Due diligence does not require the maximum feasible diligence, but it does require reasonable diligence in the circumstances.” Ford v. Gonzalez, 683 F.3d 1230, 1235 (9th Cir.2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). Furthermore, where, as here, the petitioner alleges ineffective assistance of counsel, “a petitioner must have discovered (or with the exercise of due diligence could…