Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-5726_5iel.pdf
Page Number: 6.0

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

3 

Opinion of the Court 

period to file his §2255 motion began in August 2014, mak-
ing his April 2015 motion timely.

The District Court rejected this timeliness argument and, 
in the alternative, held that Kemp’s Rule 60(b) motion was
itself untimely.  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed.  857 Fed. 
Appx. 573 (2021) (per curiam).  While it agreed with Kemp 
that  his  original  §2255  motion  “appear[ed]  to  have  been
timely,” the Eleventh Circuit nonetheless concluded that he
had  filed  his  Rule  60(b)  motion  too  late.    Id.,  at  575–576. 
The  Eleventh  Circuit  held  that  Kemp’s  reopening  motion 
alleged “precisely the sort of judicial mistak[e] in applying 
the relevant law that Rule 60(b)(1) encompasses,” and thus
was subject to Rule 60(b)(1)’s 1-year limitations period.  Id., 
at 576. 

Kemp  petitioned  this  Court  for  review,  and  we  granted 
certiorari  to  resolve  the  Courts  of  Appeals’  longstanding
disagreement whether “mistake” in Rule 60(b)(1) includes
a judge’s errors of law.1  595 U. S. ___ (2022). 

II 
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) permits “a party to
seek relief from a final judgment, and request reopening of 
his case, under a limited set of circumstances.”  Gonzalez v. 
Crosby, 545 U. S. 524, 528 (2005).  Under Rule 60(b)(1), a 
party may seek relief based on “mistake, inadvertence, sur-
prise, or excusable neglect.”  Rules 60(b)(2) through (b)(5) 
supply  other  grounds  for  reopening  a  judgment.    Finally,
Rule 60(b)(6) provides a catchall for “any other reason that 
justifies  relief.”    This  last  option  is  available  only  when 
—————— 

1 Compare Spinar v. South Dakota Bd. of Regents, 796 F. 2d 1060, 1063 
(CA8 1986) (Rule 60(b)(1) does not cover claims “that the court erred as
a matter of law”); Elias v. Ford Motor Co., 734 F. 2d 463, 467 (CA1 1984) 
(same),  with Mendez  v.  Republic  Bank,  725  F. 3d  651,  659  (CA7  2013) 
(Rule 60(b)(1) “allows a district court to correct its own [legal] errors”); 
In re 310 Assocs., 346 F. 3d 31, 35 (CA2 2003) (per curiam) (same); United 
States v. Reyes, 307 F. 3d 451, 455 (CA6 2002) (same); Parks v. U. S. Life 
& Credit Corp., 677 F. 2d 838, 839–840 (CA11 1982) (per curiam) (same).