Whether the Fifth Circuit erred in finding no 'extraordinary circumstances' and that the ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim was not 'substantial' under Rule 60(b)(6)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED This Court granted Mr. Haynes’ petition for certiorari and remanded this case to the Fifth Circuit, Haynes v. Thaler, 569 U.S. 1015 (2013), “to allow Haynes to pursue his ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim on remand if this Court in Trevino [v. Thaler, 569 U.S. 413 (2013)] rejects the single ground relied upon by the Fifth Circuit for denying Haynes’ application for a certificate of appealability.” Haynes v. Thaler, 133 S. Ct. 639 (2012) (mem.) (Statement of Sotomayor, J, and Ginsburg, J., respecting grant of stay of execution). The Fifth Circuit in turn granted a certificate of appealability (“COA”) and remanded the case to the district court. Yet there was no real review of the merits of Haynes’ claim, just a “facial review” that did not consider the underlying facts of the claim, by that Court’s own admission. A divided panel of the Fifth Circuit then denied relief, despite the dissent’s holding that “Haynes presents a substantial claim that has never been properly considered and ...the district court abused its discretion in failing to reopen his case.” Haynes v. Davis, 733 F. App’x 766, 771 (Dennis, J., dissenting) (App. A 4). The dissent also found that “the district court failed to consider all of the relevant factors and misevaluated the factors it did consider;” that there was no real merits review; that the claim was substantial; and that a major ground relied upon by the majority, “finality,” was not a decisive factor in the context of Rule 60(b). (App. A 4-8). Another ground for denial, that the claim under Rule 60(b)(6) was an impermissible “substitute for appeal,” was inapplicable, as the rationale for Trevino was that it applied in states where the IATC claim could not practically be brought on appeal. This case therefore presents the following questions: 1. Did the Fifth Circuit majority err in finding that there were no “extraordinary circumstances” and that the claim was not sufficiently “substantial” to warrant relief under Rule 60(b)(6)? 2. Did the Fifth Circuit majority err in holding that Haynes’ claim had been considered on the merits and that the district court’s “facial review” was sufficient when the underlying facts of the claim were not considered and there was no real merits review? 3. Did the Fifth Circuit majority contravene Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005) and Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759 (2017) in holding that “finality” is a determinative factor in the context of Rule 60(b), and did it err in holding that the claim was merely a “substitute for appeal” when it could not have been brought on appeal? -ii