MURPHY, Circuit Judge. When a state prisoner seeks to amend a habeas petition filed in federal court, the prisoner often will encounter a problem: the one-year statute of limitations will have expired by the time of the amendment. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). If the prisoner timely filed the original petition, this problem may not be insurmountable. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c)(1)(B), the amended petition will “relate[] back to the date” of the original petition as long as the new claims arose from the same “conduct, transaction, or occurrence” as the old ones. But sometimes a court will dismiss a prisoner’s original petition on procedural grounds, and the prisoner will seek to file a new petition in a later suit. Can the petition in the new suit “relate back to the date” of the petition in the dismissed suit, such that Rule 15 allows the prisoner to rely on that earlier date to determine the new suit’s timeliness?

Gary Watkins’s appeal in this habeas case raises that question. Like every other circuit court to address it, we hold that Rule 15 does not apply across cases in this fashion. And our prior decision in this case forecloses Watkins’s other attempts to establish the timeliness of his amended petition. See Watkins v. Deangelo-Kipp, 854 F.3d 846, 849–52 (6th Cir. 2017). We thus affirm the district court’s dismissal of his petition.

COLE, Circuit Judge. In the wake of a nationwide opioid epidemic, aggrieved individuals, local governments, and other organizations are taking pharmaceutical companies to task for their allegedly wrongful conduct in promoting and distributing prescription opioids. Quest Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Quest”), a Kentucky-based distributor of generic drugs, now finds itself on the receiving end of approximately 77 such lawsuits. Quest reported the litigation to its insurers, Westfield National Insurance Co. (“Westfield”) and Motorists Mutual Insurance Co. (“Motorists”), who promptly filed suit in federal court and sought declaratory judgments that they were not required to defend or indemnify Quest in the underlying lawsuits. The district court granted summary judgment to the insurers, reasoning that the relevant policy language, which requires the insurers to defend Quest in lawsuits seeking damages “because of bodily injury,” did not cover the claims brought against Quest. After its motion for reconsideration was denied, Quest timely appealed and the cases were consolidated for argument and opinion. Because we agree with the district court’s interpretation of the policies’ scope under Kentucky law, we affirm.

THAPAR, Circuit Judge. What started as a securities-fraud action against Corrections Corporation of America (now known as CoreCivic) has turned into a quest for documents. Eddie Tardy seeks to intervene and unseal documents that CoreCivic produced during discovery. Because he lacks standing, we deny his motion.