Whether a pro-se-state-prisoner-adequately-alleged-gateway-actual-innocence-claim

QUESTIONS PRESENTED When a state prisoner seeks federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, there are various procedural bars that often preclude relief on the merits. But a state prisoner’s actual innocence is a well-recognized avenue to avoid these procedural bars. See, e.g., McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383, 392-393 (2013). Below, over a dissent by Judge Seymour, the Tenth Circuit held that John Childers did not raise a gateway actual innocence claim in the federal district court to excuse his procedural defaults, and further held that he could not raise a gateway actual innocence claim for the first time on appeal. It did so despite the State’s suggestion that the record on appeal was inadequate and that a remand to the district court to consider the claims on a fully developed record would be appropriate under the circumstances. The questions presented are: I. Did Mr. Childers, as a pro se state prisoner, adequately allege a gateway actual innocence claim to permit the lower courts to excuse any procedural hurdles to relief on the merits in this § 2254 proceeding. II. If Mr. Childers did not adequately allege a gateway actual innocence claim in the federal district court, did his failure to do so preclude him from raising the claim in the Tenth Circuit. III. Alternatively, should this Court vacate the lower courts’ decisions and send this case back to the district court to consider Mr. Childers’ petition anew under a fully developed record. ‘