Roy West v. United States

Summary

The court affirmed the denial of West's Rule 60(b)(6) motion because reopening his prior habeas judgment would be futile: any new challenge to his life sentence would be untimely under the one-year limitations period and procedurally barred. The court also rejected West's arguments that the government's limitations defense was waived or forfeited, that a compassionate-release order created a new judgment, that his claim related back to his original motion, or that tolling doctrines or actual innocence excused the delay. No separate opinions were filed.