[21-5726] Kemp v. United States

Kemp v. United States

Justia (with opinion) · Docket · oyez.org

Argued on Apr 19, 2022.
Decided on Jun 13, 2022.

Petitioner: Dexter Earl Kemp.
Respondent: United States of America.

Advocates:

• Andrew L. Adler (for the Petitioner)
• Benjamin W. Snyder (for the Respondent)

Facts of the case (from oyez.org)

Dexter Kemp and several co-defendants were charged and convicted of drug and firearms offenses. Kemp and some of the co-defendants appealed, but their sentences were affirmed. Some of the co-defendants, without Kemp, filed petitions for rehearings, rehearings en banc, and certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court. Over a year later, Kemp moved to vacate his sentence under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), arguing ineffective assistance of counsel. The court denied his motion as untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f). Kemp argued that his petition was timely under Supreme Court Rule 13.3, which provides that if a petition for rehearing is timely filed in the lower court, the time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari runs from the date of the denial of rehearing. The court denied his motion, finding that it fell under Rule 60(b)(1) because it alleged the court made a “mistake,” and that such motions must be filed within one year.

Question

Does Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) authorize relief based on a district court’s error of law?

Conclusion

The term “mistake” in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) includes a judge’s errors of law, but Kemp’s motion was untimely under Rule 60(c)’s 1-year limitations period. Justice Clarence Thomas authored the 8-1 majority opinion of the Court.

When the Rule was adopted in 1938 and revised in 1946, the word “mistake” applied to any “misconception,” “misunderstanding,” or “fault in opinion or judgment” as to any law or fact. The text, structure, and history of the Rule support the understanding that it applies to judicial mistakes, not just party mistakes.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored a concurring opinion clarifying that the Court’s opinion does not disturb establish precedent or break new ground.

Justice Neil Gorsuch authored a dissenting opinion, arguing that he would have dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted.