Is a Rule 60(b) motion filed less than seven months after the appointment of conflict-free federal habeas counsel categorically untimely such that it cannot survive the 'substantial likelihood of success' standard?

“Were we to adopt the district court’s logic, Rule 60(b) would never be available to petitioners with conflicted counsel, so long as the conflict lasts long enough. This logic is at odds with Supreme Court precedent and the practice of supplementing or repl acing counsel to remedy such conflicts. ”1 In Christeson v. Roper, 574 U.S. 373, 380 –81 (2015), this Court held that after counsel for a capital federal habeas petitioner is replaced due to a conflict of interest, the petitioner is “entitled” to the opportunity to move to reopen the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) “with the assistance of substi tute counsel in doing so.” There, this Court said that such a motion would not be facially “futile” despite the fact that nearly a decade had elapsed since the dismissal of the habeas petition had been affirmed on appeal. In this case, Petitioner Benjamin Ritchie ’s federal habeas counsel labored under a conflict of interest before eventually abandoning him. Following the appointment of conflict -free counsel, he moved for Rule 60(b) relief within seven months. The Seventh Circuit, over a dissent, affirmed the district court’s denial of a stay of execution solely on the ground that Mr. Ritchie’s Rule 60(b) motion is not substantially likely to succeed on the merits because it was “untimely under any possible starting point for the rule’s ‘reasonable time’ requirement.” This squarely conflicts with this Court’s holding in Christeson and lower federal court decisions in other cases. The question presented is: Is a Rule 60(b) motion filed less than seven months after the appointment of conflict -free federal habeas counsel categorically untimely such that it cannot survive the “substantial likelihood of success” standard? 1 Ritchie v. Neal (Ritchie II ), No. 25 -1852 (7th Cir. May 18, 2025) (Jackson Akiwumi, J., dissenting) (citations omitted)).