Whether a Rule 60(B) motion challenging procedural default in a habeas corpus proceeding violates constitutional rights when state and federal court errors obstruct claim presentation

1. Were the Petitioner ’s Constitutional Amendment Rights violated when petitioner ’s Rule 60(B) motion was denied yet, the Northern District court of Appealsstated: “However, contrary to the district courts determination, “Widmyer [also] could properly challenge the District court ’s finding of procedural default in a Rule 60(B) motion. Explaining that a movant Rule 60(B) does not raise “a new habeas corpus claim, or attack Q the federal courts previous denial of the claim on the merits, when he ‘merely asserts that a previous Ruling which precluded a merits determination, ” such as” a denial for...procedural default, “was erroneous. Accordingly, the district court erred by declining to consider that argument under Rule 60(B). 2. Is there a Autonomy Right to assert claims in a Habeas proceeding, where under the state habeas statues, 1 “both ” the “habeas petitioner, ” and habeas counsel have to raise all claims. If this is obstructed does this obstruction rebut the presumption of correctness under § 2254 (e) (1)? 1 In Losh, it holds that both the Habeas petitioner, and habeas counsel must raise all claims, petitioner asserts, this rebuts the presumption of correctness cumulatively when obstructed by errors in both state court and errors by the Federal Court.