Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.

Kemp v. United States

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Kemp v. United States
Term: 2021
Important Dates
Argued: April 19, 2022
Decided: June 13, 2022
Outcome
Affirmed
Vote
8-1
Majority
Clarence Thomas • Chief Justice John Roberts • Stephen Breyer • Samuel Alito • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Brett Kavanaugh • Amy Coney Barrett
Concurring
Sonia Sotomayor
Dissenting
Neil Gorsuch

Kemp v. United States is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 13, 2022, during the court's October 2021-2022 term. The case was argued before the court on April 19, 2022.

The court affirmed the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in an 8-1 ruling, holding that the term mistake in Rule 60(b)(1) does include a judge’s errors of law, and as a result, it was within the court's jurisdiction to review under Rule 60(b)(1) and to be considered as untimely under Rule 60(c)’s one-year limitations period.[1] Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the majority opinion of the court. Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion. Justice Neil Gorsuch dissented. Click here for more information about the ruling.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: Dexter Kemp was convicted in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida for drug and firearms offenses and was sentenced to 35 years imprisonment. He sought to vacate his sentence on the basis of several claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and his request was denied. Kemp moved to reopen his proceedings and the request was denied as being untimely. Kemp asked for consideration and argued that his request was timely under Supreme Court Rule 13.3. That request was also denied as untimely. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit affirmed the district court's judgments. Click here to learn more about the case's background.
  • The issue: The case concerned the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governing court procedure in civil cases and Supreme Court Rule 13.3.
  • The question presented: "Whether Rule 60(b)(1) authorizes relief based on a district court’s error of law."[2]
  • The outcome: The court affirmed the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in an 8-1 ruling.


    • The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. To review the lower court's opinion, click here.[3]

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    Background

    Dexter Kemp was convicted in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida for drug and firearms offenses and was sentenced to 35 years imprisonment. On appeal in 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit affirmed the conviction and sentence.[2][3]

    On April 29, 2015, Kemp filed a motion with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida to vacate his sentence on the basis of several claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. On September 30, 2016, the Southern District of Florida dismissed the motion as untimely, holding that Kemp's conviction was final on February 13, 2014, 90 days after the 11th Circuit issued its ruling in 2013 and after his period to file a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court expired.[3]

    On June 22, 2018, Kemp asked the district court to reopen his proceedings, arguing that his petition was timely under Supreme Court Rule 13.3.[2] Kemp argued that the district court miscalculated the timetable by not accounting for Rule 13.3. The Southern District of Florida denied Kemp's request as untimely, concluding that it alleged that the court made an error, and such motions must be filed within one year, according to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.[3]

    On March 6, 2020, Kemp asked the court to reconsider. The district court denied the motion, holding that the request was untimely and without merit.[3]

    On appeal, the 11th Circuit affirmed the Southern District of Florida's judgment, holding that while Kemp's request to vacate his sentence was timely, the district court did not make a mistake in dismissing his motion to reopen the proceedings related to Supreme Court Rule 13.3 and denying reconsideration of the denial.[3]

    Question presented

    The petitioner presented the following question to the court:[2]

    Question presented:
    “ Whether Rule 60(b)(1) authorizes relief based on a district court’s error of law.[4] ”

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[5]



    Transcript

    Transcript of oral argument:[6]

    Outcome

    The court affirmed the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in an 8-1 ruling, holding that the term mistake in Rule 60(b)(1) does include a judge’s errors of law, and as a result, it was within the court's jurisdiction to review under Rule 60(b)(1) and to be considered as untimely under Rule 60(c)’s one-year limitations period.[1] Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the majority opinion of the court. Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion. Justice Neil Gorsuch dissented.

    Opinion

    In the court's majority opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote:[1]

    “ Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) allows a party to seek relief from a final judgment based on, among other things, a “mistake.” The question presented is whether the term “mistake” includes a judge’s error of law. We conclude, based on the text, structure, and history of Rule 60(b), that a judge’s errors of law are indeed “mistake[s]” under Rule 60(b)(1).


    In sum, nothing in the text, structure, or history of Rule 60(b) persuades us to narrowly interpret the otherwise broad term “mistake” to exclude judicial errors of law. Because Kemp’s Rule 60(b) motion alleged such a legal error, we affirm the Eleventh Circuit’s judgment that the motion was cognizable under Rule 60(b)(1), subject to a 1-year limitations period, and, therefore, untimely.[4]

    		”
    —Justice Clarence Thomas

    Concurring opinion

    Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion.

    In her concurrence, Justice Sotomayor wrote:[1]

    “ I join the Court’s opinion holding that the term “mistake” in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) encompasses a

    judge’s mistake of law. I write separately to make two points.
    First, I join the Court’s opinion with the understanding that nothing in it casts doubt on the availability of Rule 60(b)(6) to reopen a judgment in extraordinary circumstances, including a change in controlling law. See, e.g., Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 126, 128 (2017) (concluding that the petitioner was “entitle[d] to relief under Rule 60(b)(6)” because of a change in law and intervening developments of fact); Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 531 (2005) (“[A] motion might contend that a subsequent change in substantive law is a ‘reason justifying relief,’ Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 60(b)(6), from the previous denial of a claim”); Polites v. United States, 364 U.S. 426, 433 (1960) (leaving open that a “clear and authoritative change” in the law governing judgment in a case may present extraordinary circumstances). Today’s decision does not purport to disturb these settled precedents.

    Second, I do not understand the Court’s opinion to break any new ground as to Rule 60(c)(1), which requires that all Rule 60(b) motions be “made within a reasonable time.” See 11 C. Wright, A. Miller, & M. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure §2866 (3d ed. 2022) (“What constitutes reasonable time necessarily depends on the facts in each individual case”).[4]

    		”
    —Justice Sonia Sotomayor

    Dissenting opinion

    Justice Neil Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion.

    In his dissent, Justice Gorsuch wrote:[1]

    “ The Court took this case to determine whether a district court’s mistake of law is correctable under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) or 60(b)(6).


    From the start, granting review was a questionable use of judicial resources. ...

    Respectfully, I would have dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted. Not only does this case fail to meet our usual standards for review. See Supreme Court Rule 10. At bottom, this dispute presents a policy question about the proper balance between finality and error correction. Should a district court be able to clean up a legal error through a collateral proceeding on any reasonable timeline within a year of judgment? Or do Rule 59(e) and the appellate process provide the necessary corrective measures in ordinary cases, with Rule 60(b)(6) as a last, narrow avenue to relief? Questions like these are best resolved not through a doubtful interpretive project focused on a pronoun dropped in 1946, but through the rulemaking process. There, policy interests on both sides can be accounted for and weighed in light of the “collective experience of bench and bar.” Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100, 114 (2009).[4]

    		”
    —Justice Neil Gorsuch

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    October term 2021-2022

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2021-2022

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 4, 2021. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.[7]

    The court agreed to hear 68 cases during its 2021-2022 term.[8] Four cases were dismissed and one case was removed from the argument calendar.[9]

    The court issued decisions in 66 cases during its 2021-2022 term. Three cases were decided without argument. Between 2007 and 2021, SCOTUS released opinions in 1,128 cases, averaging 75 cases per year.


    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 U.S. Supreme Court, Kemp v. United States, decided June 13, 2022
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 U.S. Supreme Court, "Kemp v. United States: PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI," filed September 16, 2021
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, Kemp v. United States, decided May 25, 2021
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    5. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," argued April 19, 2022
    6. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," argued April 19, 2022
    7. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed February 4, 2021
    8. ↑ Consolidated cases are counted as one case for purposes of this number.
    9. ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, "Order List: 593 U.S.," May 17, 2021
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Kemp_v._United_States&oldid=9117327"