Christopher L. Takhvar v. Richard Comerford, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections

In a Habeas case are motions filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 60(d)(3) and Rule 60(B)(6) subject to time limitation or provision of Rule 60(c)(1), and would the denial of a Rule 60(d)(3) or Rule 60(b)(6) motion asserting a time limitation violate the decision of Herring v. United States and conflict with the 3rd Circuit Court’s decision regarding time limitations for Rule 60(b)(6) and Rule 60(d)(3)?

Does the State violate the 5th and 14th Amendment Substantive Due Process clause, when it utilizes contested video evidence of prejudicial statements in custodial interrogation and publishes and monetizes a false narrative, edited version, while a citizen’s right to Habeas Corpus Art. 1, Sect. 9 of the United States Constitution is pending federal review; and Would the denial of such a claim without the U.S. District Court addressing the merits or ordering the State to respond to the allegations violate the impartial, and compulsory process clause of the 6th Amendment, and the equal protection of the law and Due Process of the 5th and 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution?