Can a successive §2255 motion under Johnson open the door and allow for collateral review of enumerated clause predicates invalidated under Descamps and Mathis

QUESTION PRESENTED A successive motion to correct a sentence under 28 U.S.C. §2255(h)(2) must contain a “new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable.” In Johnson v. United States, 185 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) this Court held that violent felonies under the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) no longer qualify as predicate offenses. That decision was made retroactive to cases on review. See Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016) In addition, certain ACCA enumerated clause violent felonies have also been invalidated and no longer qualify as predicates. Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) and Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013) However, unlike Johnson, Descamps and Mathis are not retroactive and thus, those predicates alone cannot be challenged in a successive §2255 motion. The question is: Can a successive §2255 motion under Johnson open the door and allow for collateral review of enumerated clause predicates invalidated under Descamps and Mathis under the theory that Johnson, as a new rule of constitutional law, makes such collateral review now available?