Kemp v. United States

Dexter Kemp (defendant) was convicted of various crimes. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. Kemp filed a motion at the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida to vacate the conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Motions under § 2255 were required to be filed within one year of a conviction becoming final. In September 2016, the district court determined that Kemp’s motion was late and denied the motion. Kemp did not appeal the denial. In June 2018, Kemp filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) to reopen the proceedings, arguing that the district court’s timeliness ruling on his § 2255 motion was legally erroneous. Rule 60(c)(1) required all Rule 60(b) motions to be filed within a reasonable time. Rule 60(c)(1) also required certain Rule 60(b) motions, including Rule 60(b)(1) motions, to be filed at most within one year of the judgment becoming final. Rule 60(b)(1) permitted a record to be reopened for mistake. Rule 60(b)(6) was a catchall provision for relief if and only if other avenues in Rule 60(b) did not apply. Rule 60(b)(6) motions were not subject to the additional one-year time-frame requirement. Kemp sought relief under Rule 60(b)(6). The government (plaintiff) argued that Kemp was asking for relief for a judge’s obvious legal error, which meant that the motion fell under Rule 60(b)(1) and was required to be filed no later than one year after the judgment became final. Kemp argued that mistake encompassed only factual errors and that his motion fell under the Rule 60(b)(6) catchall provision, which did not have the one-year time constraint. The district court ruled that Kemp’s Rule 60(b) motion was untimely because it asked for relief under Rule 60(b)(1). The motion was filed in June 2018, almost two years after the district court’s decision on the § 2255 motion, and thus not within Rule 60(b)(1)’s one-year time limit. The court of appeals ruled that the district court’s denial of the § 2255 motion was legally erroneous. However, the court of appeals agreed with the district court that Kemp’s Rule 60(b) motion was untimely under Rule 60(b)(1). The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.