Whether the lower courts wrongfully and unjustly protected parties that engaged in fraud on the court, misrepresentation and misconduct by refusing to apply equitable tolling to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) claims

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Petitioner was convicted based on DNA evidence purportedly tying him to the crime—a test of a blood sample found at the scene. At trial, Petitioner’s defense was that he was not present and that scientific evidence was incorrect. Petitioner’s counsel did not have the evidence independently tested, however. Proceeding timely under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, Petitioner presented claims including that his trial counsel had been ineffective in failing to obtain an independent expert to test the blood evidence and for failing to obtain documents to establish that the DNA analyst’s testimony and her claimed test results were false. In support, he noted that an audit had revealed troubling cases at the lab where the blood was tested 1986 to 2002 where analysts withheld or distorted evidence, cases involving the particular DNA analyst in this case, including one case in which she “switched the known DNA sample profiles” during testing in another case the exact same week Petitioner’s blood was tested in this case. The government’s response included an affirmative (but false) statement that there were no reasons to question the DNA test results. The district court relied on that claim to deny Petitioner relief. After years of diligent investigation, Petitioner finally obtained records that showed, among other things, the analyst that had tested the blood sample in this case had been disciplined, had switched blood samples in another case the same week she tested the blood sample in this case and had been forced to resign due to repeated errors. An attorney had risked her law license and violated a North Carolina statute that precluded sharing of state employee records with inmates by giving this information to Petitioner. Petitioner filed a Rule 60(b)(3) motion asserting that the government had engaged in fraud and misconduct by misrepresenting to the district court that there was “‘no reason” to question the DNA test results. Although the Fourth Circuit noted that it was “concerned” with the government’s conduct in the case, it ruled that Petitioner was barred from bringing the claim late, despite the record showing his diligence and how a state statute had prevented him from obtaining the evidence any earlier. The first question for the Court is whether the lower courts, by refusing to apply equitable tolling to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) claims are wrongfully and unjustly protecting parties that have engaged in fraud on the court, misrepresentation and misconduct and then taken steps to prevent discovery of this evidence until the one-year deadline has expired. The second and more focused question for the Court is whether Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) is a mandatory claim-processing rule that is not subject to equitable tolling. i