Does the United States Supreme Court require a showing of actual innocence to pursue an independent action in equity under Fed. Civ. Proc. R. 60(d)(J) in a Habeas proceeding?

QUESTIONS: PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 4. In the context of a Habeas proceeding, does the United States Supreme Court require a showing of actual innocence in order to pursue an independant action in equity under Fed. Civ. Proc. R. 60(d)(J)2 2. Is there a federal procedural rule, written or unwritten, which permits . _ a United States Court of Appeals and/or a United States District Court ; to simply refuse to acknowledge and determine a presentation of cause ' & prejudice --presented within a Merit (Traverse) Brief to address a : procedural default: merely because the cause & prejudice argument(s) were no presented prior to the merits of the constitutional claim, in : a specific chronological order? Or is it sufficient for a 2254 habeas petitioner, proceeding. pro se, to simply ensure that their’ cause and . prejudice presentation is separate entitled and distinguishably raised . within the pages dedicated to that specific Ground for relief? a on Be Can a 2254 petitioner's United States Constitutional Claim, properly ; _. presented within his habeas petition and traverse brief, be denied a merit a past-habeas proceeding simply based on a oe ‘passage of time: when it bas been shown that the Federal District Court . had actively mislead petitioner in regard to the sufficency of his cause & prejudice presentation. presented to overcome the procedural bar placed against said constitutional claim? 4. . Even in a State that. does not recognize the prison mailbox rule, as articulated in Houston v. Lack, does a prisoner proceeding pro se within a 2254 proceeding overcome a procedural default based upon a late State . i | : filing: Where it is show that he delivered (surrendered) his State petition to prison authorities for processing and mailing in sufficient time for it to arrive timely in the normal course of events? , ii