When does section 2255’s factual-discovery limitation begin?

Section 2255(f)(4) asks when facts supporting the claim could have been discovered through due diligence. An actual discovery date alone is insufficient. Johnson recognizes a qualified predicate-vacatur example that also requires diligence in obtaining the state vacatur. Compare the other accrual limbs before counting.

Responsible actor. A federal prisoner asserting a section 2255 claim based on allegedly later-discoverable supporting facts.

Identify each claim’s supporting facts and distinguish factual discovery from learning legal significance.

Establish when reasonable diligence could have disclosed those facts, including available evidence and actual investigative steps.

For a vacated state predicate used to enhance the federal sentence, apply Johnson’s actual notice and diligence requirements.

Compare all four statutory accrual limbs and separately review second-or-successive authorization and any circuit-supported relief.

This source guide requires the latest qualifying accrual date, complete review history, claim-specific facts and every supported tolling interval. It supplies no automatic date or paid calculation. A single date cannot establish the limitation period for this procedure.

1. Establish the relevant judgment, asserted claim and governing state-custody or federal-sentence procedure.
2. Compare every applicable statutory accrual limb using the actual review and discovery record.
3. Identify any circuit-supported equitable relief without importing state-petition statutory tolling.
4. Apply the appropriate time-computation and filing rules only after those legal facts are established.

After establishing the governing accrual event, exclude that event day and examine the corresponding anniversary under the applicable federal time-computation rules. A one-year period must not be replaced mechanically with 365 days across a leap year. This guide does not resolve a February 29 anniversary or supply a running-day ledger. The latest qualifying statutory accrual date and every legally supported excluded interval must be established before arithmetic can represent a filing endpoint. A late-discovery theory must be supported claim by claim under applicable law. Neither a document date nor a successful state proceeding automatically establishes timeliness.

Rule 6(a) supplies ordinary weekend, legal-holiday and qualifying clerk-inaccessibility rules where applicable through Habeas Rule 12. Identify the filing district, actual holidays and access facts. A hypothetical Saturday anniversary does not establish the next open filing day in an actual case. A closed-day adjustment cannot itself establish accrual, statutory tolling or equitable relief.

This source guide requires the latest qualifying accrual date, complete review history, claim-specific facts and every supported tolling interval. It supplies no automatic date or paid calculation. A single date cannot establish the limitation period for this procedure.

Assume October 6, 2026 is already established as this claim’s latest qualifying accrual date, with no applicable excluded interval. A corresponding-anniversary illustration reaches October 6, 2027. This arithmetic does not determine whether the assumed legal trigger is correct. October 6, 2027 is an explanatory nominal anniversary only. The guide supplies no automatic filing endpoint.

Assume October 3, 2025 is the established latest accrual date and no excluded interval applies. The corresponding anniversary is Saturday, October 3, 2026. A weekend-only illustration reaches Monday, October 5. Actual district holidays, clerk access and filing facts remain separate checks. Do not publish an automatic Monday filing date without establishing the applicable calendar and all other facts.

Assume a prisoner diligently sought state predicate vacatur after entry of the enhanced federal judgment and received notice of vacatur October 6, 2026. Johnson treats that notice as a potentially operative discovery fact in its qualified setting. The example assumes diligence and does not infer it from successful vacatur. Assess the qualified October 6 candidate under section 2255(f)(4), then compare other accrual limbs and actual filing facts.

Assume the same October 6, 2026 notice of vacatur, but the prisoner cannot establish diligence in seeking vacatur after the enhanced federal judgment. The notice date alone does not satisfy Johnson’s qualification. A mechanically identical one-year count would conceal the missing legal condition. No automatic discovery-based endpoint is established.

Due diligence controls discoverability

Subsection (f)(4) asks when supporting facts could have been discovered. An actual document-receipt date does not answer whether they were discoverable earlier.

Vacatur requires diligence in seeking it

Johnson treats notice of predicate vacatur as a relevant fact only with due diligence in obtaining that vacatur after the enhanced federal judgment.

State litigation is not an automatic pause

The state proceeding in Johnson concerns the qualified discovery trigger. It does not import section 2244(d)(2) tolling into section 2255.

Later accrual does not establish permission

Subsection (h) separately governs certification of second-or-successive motions. Factual discovery and authorization are different inquiries.

• This source guide requires the latest qualifying accrual date, complete review history, claim-specific facts and every supported tolling interval. It supplies no automatic date or paid calculation. A single date cannot establish the limitation period for this procedure.
• This discovery limb concerns facts supporting a federal section 2255 claim. It differs from finality accrual and from a Supreme Court new-right trigger.

• Keep the operative judgment, appellate decisions and applicable review-period evidence.
• Document every asserted claim’s statutory accrual basis and supporting diligence record.
• Preserve the circuit authority and actual facts for any asserted equitable relief.
• Check the filing district’s rules, holidays, clerk access and inmate-mail evidence.
• Review second-or-successive restrictions separately from limitation arithmetic.
• The federal prisoner files a section 2255 motion with the sentencing court clerk. Rule 3 requires docketing in the criminal case and clerk delivery or service to the United States attorney. For an inmate filing, establish timely internal-mail deposit and use of an available legal-mail system. Preserve the declaration or notarized evidence stating deposit and prepaid first-class postage. Drafting, mailing through an unproved route or requesting extra time does not itself establish a timely motion.