the district court for further proceedings. II. Whether Petitioner’s Rule 60(b) Motion Should Be Granted We have previously held that “Martinez was a change in decisional law and does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance meriting Rule 60(b)(6) relief.” Maj. Op. at 713. However, Abdur’Rahman did not limit his motion to relief under subsection (6). (See Mot., R. 351, PagelD 383.) Instead, the district court should review Abdur’Rahman’s motion to determine whether it meets the requirements under any of the permissible grounds for relief. Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). For example, the court’s refusal to decide Abdur’Rahman’s claims on the merits, despite their procedural default, could be considered a “mistake” under Rule 60(b)(1). See Ab-dur’Rahman v. Bell, 493 F.3d 738, 741 (6th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>) (opinion vacated by en banc). Even if
holding agency claim requirements under the federal torts claim act must be exhausted before district court has jurisdiction holding that when ruling on a motion under rule 60b1 the trial court is not required to make written findings of fact unless a request is made holding that district court appropriately dismissed suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction when the case was moot holding that a district court must dismiss habeas petitions containing any claims that have not been exhausted in state court holding the motion was more appropriately analyzed under rule 60b1 because the district court made a mistake when it determined that abdurrahmans claim was not exhausted in state court