not item by item.” Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 436, 115 S.Ct. 1555, 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995). But materiality is distinct from timeliness, which we evaluate on a claim-by-claim basis. Prendergast v. Clements, 699 F.3d 1182, 1185-88 (10th Cir.2012). Although we are sympathetic to a habeas petitioner’s desire to avoid penalties for successive filings by building as strong a case as possible before filing, the factual predicate of Madrid’s Lord Memo claim was the discovery of the Lord Memo itself, not the Gunner Memo. 2 We have also granted Madrid a certificate of appealability to appeal the district court’s sua sponte conclusion that Madrid was not entitled to equitable tolling of his Lord Memo claim. See Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 649, 130 S.Ct. 2549, 177 L.Ed.2d 130 (2010) (<HOLDING>)., Equitable tolling is available if a
holding that the untimely petition in that case tolled the aedpa statute of limitations recognizing that statute of limitations may be tolled indefinitely for legally incompetent persons holding that fela statute of limitations is tolled by incompetence recognizing that  2244dlds statute of limitations can be tolled holding statute of limitations should not be equitably tolled for taxpayer who filed a refund claim after the applicable statute of limitations