Whether the Fifth Circuit has misinterpreted Buck by requiring Mr. Johnson to plead a meritorious claim for habeas relief in his Rule 60(b)(6) motion?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Capital Section 2254 petitioner Dexter Darnell Johnson filed a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6), alleging that misconduct by his former court-appointed federal habeas counsel amounted to a violation of his right to counsel under 18 U.S.C. § 3599. The District Court denied the motion. Relying on Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. __, 187 S. Ct. 759 (2017), the Fifth Circuit denied a certificate of appealability on the ground that the motion did not plead a meritorious claim for habeas relief that had been forfeited because of his former attorney’s malfeasance. Two weeks prior to the opinion in Mr. Johnson’s case, the Fifth Circuit denied a certificate of appealability to another capital Section 2254 petitioner who sought to appeal the dismissal of his Rule 60(b)(6) motion. There, the Court held that the motion was an unauthorized second or successive application because it pled new habeas claims that had been forfeited by the petitioner’s former court-appointed federal habeas counsel, by whom the petitioner also alleged misconduct. In that case, the Court applied settled Fifth Circuit precedent holding that a Rule 60(b)(6) motion that identifies new claims for relief “is the definition of a successive claim.” The questions presented to this Court are: 1. Whether the Fifth Circuit has misinterpreted Buck by requiring Mr. Johnson to plead a meritorious claim for habeas relief in his Rule 60(b)(6) motion? 2. Whether certiorari is necessary to cure the Fifth Circuit’s capricious applications of Buck and Gonzalez, under which Section 2254 petitioners seeking Rule 60(b)(6) relief must plead meritorious habeas claims, but face certain dismissal on successor grounds if they do so? ii