A judgment in federal court feels final, and most of the time it is. But the Federal Rules give a losing party one narrow second chance: a motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b). It is not a second appeal, and it is not a way to re-argue a case you already lost. It is a short list of specific grounds (a mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud, a void judgment) paired with a deadline that has two parts: the motion must be made within a reasonable time, and for the first three grounds, no more than one year after the judgment was entered.
That one-year figure is the headline, but it is only half the rule. A motion filed eleven months after judgment can still be denied as untimely if the party sat on the facts for months. And a motion filed after the one-year mark can still be timely if it rests on a ground that carries no fixed cap, but only if it was still filed within a reasonable time. Knowing which ground you are on decides which clock applies.
The six grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)
Rule 60(b) lets a court, “on motion and just terms,” relieve a party from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for one of six reasons:
(1) Mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. This covers the lawyer who miscalendared a deadline, the party who never received notice, and, since the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Kemp v. United States, a judge’s own legal error. The key word is excusable: ordinary carelessness is not enough, and courts look hard at why the mistake happened and how quickly the party acted once it was discovered.
(2) Newly discovered evidence. The evidence must be genuinely new, evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59. Evidence you already had, or could have found with more effort before trial, does not qualify.
(3) Fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party. This is fraud by the other side, not fraud on the court generally, and it must be shown with particularity. A witness who turned out to be wrong is not fraud; a party who hid documents it was ordered to produce may be.
(4) The judgment is void. A judgment is void when the court lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter or the parties, or acted in a way inconsistent with due process, for example, entering judgment against a defendant who was never properly served. This is the most powerful ground in theory, because a void judgment was never valid at all.
(5) The judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; rests on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable. This ground matters most for injunctions and other forward-looking orders whose factual basis has changed.
(6) Any other reason that justifies relief. The catchall is deliberately narrow. Courts treat it as a safety valve for extraordinary circumstances, and they will not let a party use it to dodge the one-year limit on grounds (1) through (3); if your real complaint is mistake or fraud, you cannot re-label it as “any other reason” to buy more time.
The deadline: reasonable time, plus a one-year outer limit
Rule 60(c)(1) states the timing rule in one sentence: a motion under Rule 60(b) “must be made within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding.”
That sentence creates two different clocks. For mistake, newly discovered evidence, and fraud, the motion must satisfy both tests: it must be filed within a reasonable time and within one year of entry. For void judgments, satisfied judgments, and the catchall, there is no fixed one-year cap, but the reasonable-time requirement still applies. Until recently, most circuits held that no time limit at all applied to void judgments, on the theory that no passage of time can turn a nullity into a binding judgment. In January 2026, the Supreme Court rejected that view in Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc. v. Burton, holding that the reasonable-time limit in Rule 60(c)(1) applies to Rule 60(b)(4) motions too. A party attacking a void judgment must still move promptly once it knows the facts.
What counts as “reasonable” is decided case by case. Courts weigh how long the delay was, why it happened, whether the other side would be prejudiced by reopening the case, and whether the moving party acted diligently once it learned the ground for relief. A delay of eleven months after learning the key fact has been held unreasonable even though it fell inside the one-year cap. The one-year limit is a ceiling, not a safe harbor.
Worked date examples
Example 1: the one-year outer limit. Judgment is entered on Monday, November 2, 2026. A motion based on mistake under Rule 60(b)(1) must be filed within a reasonable time and no later than Tuesday, November 2, 2027, one year after entry. A motion filed on November 3, 2027 is barred, even if the mistake is clear. And a motion filed on October 15, 2027 can still be denied if the party learned of the mistake in January and waited nine months without explanation.
Example 2: the weekend rollover. Judgment is entered on Friday, October 30, 2026. One year later is Saturday, October 30, 2027. Under Rule 6(a)(3), when the last day of a period falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period runs until the end of the next business day, so the outer limit for a Rule 60(b)(1), (2), or (3) motion rolls forward to Monday, November 1, 2027. Do not rely on the rollover as a planning tool; filing on the last day invites a fight about whether the motion was filed within a reasonable time at all.
Example 3: the reasonable-time trap for a ground with no cap. Judgment is entered on Friday, November 13, 2026, against a defendant who was never served. The defendant learns of the judgment in March 2027 but waits until February 2028 to move under Rule 60(b)(4). There is no one-year cap on a void-judgment motion, but after Coney Island, the court can still deny it for waiting nearly a year after learning of the judgment. The lesson: the absence of a fixed deadline is not permission to wait.
Rule 60(b) is not Rule 59
The most common confusion is between Rule 60(b) and Rule 59. A motion for a new trial or to alter or amend a judgment under Rule 59 must be filed no later than 28 days after entry of judgment, and Rule 6(b)(2) forbids the court from extending that period. Our federal post-judgment motion deadline guide walks through that 28-day clock in detail. Rule 60(b) is the route for parties who discover their ground after the 28 days have run, or whose ground, like a void judgment, could not have been raised under Rule 59 at all. The trade-off is that Rule 60(b) relief is discretionary and narrow, where Rule 59 relief is broader but time-barred quickly.
The appeal trap: a Rule 60(b) motion usually does not stop the appeal clock
Filing a Rule 60(b) motion does not suspend the judgment or affect its finality, Rule 60(c)(2) says so expressly, so the winning party can enforce the judgment while the motion is pending. And it usually does not stop the appeal clock either. Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4)(A)(vi), a Rule 60 motion tolls the time to appeal only if it is filed within 28 days after entry of judgment; the appeal period then runs from the order disposing of the motion. A Rule 60(b) motion filed on day 60 does not extend the 30-day appeal deadline at all, and an appeal of the original judgment filed after that deadline will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Our federal notice of appeal deadline guide explains the 30-day rule and its tolling exceptions. That 28-day cutoff is one of six tolling rules that decide whether an appeal survives a post-judgment motion — our federal appeal deadline tolling guide explains the full FRAP 4(a)(4) list and the premature-notice trap.
There is one consolation: the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion is itself a final, appealable order. If the district court denies your motion, you generally have 30 days from the denial order to appeal that denial, but that appeal is narrow. The court of appeals reviews the denial for abuse of discretion, not the merits of the original case, so a Rule 60(b) appeal is a much harder climb than a timely appeal of the judgment itself.
What courts actually require
Rule 60(b) relief is granted “on motion and just terms,” and courts treat it as an extraordinary remedy. The moving party must identify a specific ground, explain the delay, and show that relief is warranted under the circumstances, including, in many circuits, a meritorious defense or claim if the judgment is reopened. Vague claims of unfairness, or arguments that could have been raised on direct appeal, will not carry the motion. The strongest Rule 60(b) motions are short, specific, and filed fast: they name the ground, attach the new evidence or proof of the fraud, and explain exactly when the moving party learned of it.
If you are calendaring a case, work backward from the judgment date twice: once for the 28-day Rule 59 window, and once for the Rule 60(b) clocks. The legal deadline calculator can run the date math, but the judgment call, whether a delay is “reasonable”, is one no calculator can make for you. When in doubt, file early: in Rule 60(b) practice, the delay itself is often what defeats the motion. If a deadline has already slipped, our missed court deadline guide covers the options for salvaging the case.
Frequently asked questions
How long do I have to file a Rule 60(b) motion?
Within a reasonable time after the judgment or order, and, for mistake, newly discovered evidence, or fraud under Rule 60(b)(1), (2), or (3), no more than one year after entry. For the other grounds, including void judgments and the catchall, there is no one-year cap, but the reasonable-time requirement still applies.
Does the one-year limit mean I can wait a full year?
No. The one-year limit is an outer ceiling, not a safe harbor. A motion filed inside the year can still be denied as untimely if the party waited an unreasonable time after learning the facts. Courts have denied motions filed eleven months after the party learned the key fact.
Can I use Rule 60(b)(6) to get around the one-year limit?
No. Courts will not let a party re-label a mistake, new-evidence, or fraud claim as “any other reason” to escape the one-year cap. The catchall is reserved for extraordinary circumstances that do not fit the first five grounds.
Does filing a Rule 60(b) motion pause the judgment or the appeal deadline?
Neither, in the usual case. Rule 60(c)(2) provides that filing the motion does not affect the judgment’s finality or suspend its operation, so it remains enforceable. And under FRAP 4(a)(4)(A)(vi), the motion tolls the appeal period only if filed within 28 days after entry of judgment.
Is a void judgment still subject to a time limit?
Yes, since January 2026. In Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc. v. Burton, the Supreme Court held that Rule 60(c)(1)’s reasonable-time requirement applies to Rule 60(b)(4) motions attacking void judgments. The old view, that no time limit applied to void judgments, no longer holds.
What happens if the court denies my Rule 60(b) motion?
The denial is itself appealable. You generally have 30 days from the denial order to file a notice of appeal, but the court of appeals reviews the denial for abuse of discretion, a highly deferential standard, rather than re-deciding the merits of the original case.
This article is general information only and is not legal advice. Deadlines under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure depend on the facts of each case and on local rules and court orders, which can change the result. Consult a licensed attorney about your specific situation.