Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-5726_5iel.pdf
Page Number: 10.0

Cite as:  596 U. S. ____ (2022) 

7 

Opinion of the Court 

limiting Rule 60(b)(1) to non-judicial, non-legal errors. 

While  Kemp  does  not  dispute  that  “mistake”  ordinarily 
would  cover  both  legal  and  factual  errors,  he  argues  that 
the  other  grounds  for  relief  in  Rule  60(b)(1)—“inadvert-
ence,”  “surprise,”  and  “excusable  neglect”—involve  exclu-
sively  non-legal,  non-judicial  errors,  and  the  word  “mis-
take” should therefore be similarly limited.  But courts have 
long found that excusable neglect may involve legal error. 
See, e.g., Lenaghan v. Pepsico, Inc., 961 F. 2d 1250, 1254– 
1255 (CA6 1992) (per curiam) (“understandable, albeit mis-
taken, reading of ” a local rule); A. F. Dormeyer Co. v. M. J. 
Sales  &  Distribution  Co., 461 F. 2d 40, 42–43 (CA7 1972) 
(misunderstanding  of  summons  and  relevant  legal  rules); 
Provident Security Life Ins. Co. v. Gorsuch, 323 F. 2d 839, 
843 (CA9 1963) (erroneous understanding of Federal Rule 
of Civil Procedure 12).  And they have a similar history of 
granting relief based on “judicial inadvertence.”  Larson v. 
Heritage Square Assocs., 952 F. 2d 1533, 1536 (CA8 1992) 
(emphasis added); see also, e.g., O’Tell v. New York, N. H. 
& H. R. Co., 236 F. 2d 472, 475 (CA2 1956) (judge’s failure
to  deduct  setoff  in  entering  judgment  was  “inadvertence”
under  Rule  60(b)).  Because  the  words  surrounding  “mis-
take” in Rule 60(b)(1) do not connote exclusively non-legal 
or  non-judicial  errors,  they  do  not  favor  Kemp’s  narrower
reading.

Kemp also argues that Rule 60’s structure favors inter-
preting the term “mistake” narrowly.  Our interpretation, 
he  contends,  would  create  confusing  overlap  between
Rule 60(b)(1)  and  Rule  60(a),  which  authorizes  a  court  to 
“correct a clerical mistake or a mistake arising from over-
sight or omission whenever one is found in a judgment, or-
der,  or  other  part  of  the  record.”    We  disagree.  Because 
Rule 60(a)  covers  a  subset  of  “mistake[s]”—e.g.,  “clerical” 
ones—whereas  Rule  60(b)(1)  covers  “mistake[s]”  sim-
pliciter, the overlap Kemp alleges would exist even if “mis-