A Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment asks a federal court to set aside or reopen a final judgment on one of six specific grounds: mistake or excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, fraud by an opposing party, a void judgment, a judgment that has been satisfied or is no longer equitable going forward, or any other reason justifying relief. Three of those grounds must be raised within one year of the judgment; the other three within a “reasonable time.” The motion is deliberately hard to win, and one procedural feature catches litigants constantly: filing it does not pause the deadline to appeal.
The Six Grounds for Relief
Every Rule 60(b) motion must identify the specific subsection it relies on. Motions that cite Rule 60(b) generally, without pinning down a ground, are routinely denied.
Mistake, Inadvertence, Surprise, or Excusable Neglect — Rule 60(b)(1)
This ground covers honest errors by a party or attorney that led to the judgment, most often a missed deadline or a failure to respond. Courts do not forgive every slip. They apply the four-factor test from Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. Partnership, weighing prejudice to the other side, the length of the delay and its effect on the case, the reason for the delay and whether it was within the party’s control, and whether the party acted in good faith. No factor decides the question on its own, though the reason for the delay tends to carry the most weight. A missed filing after a hospitalization sits very differently from one caused by forgetting.
Newly Discovered Evidence — Rule 60(b)(2)
Evidence that existed during the original case but could not have been found in time to seek a new trial under Rule 59(b) can support relief, but two requirements sink most attempts. The party must show real diligence in searching for the evidence before and during trial; a document sitting in a public database no one checked will not qualify. And the evidence must be significant enough that it would probably change the outcome. Material that only chips at a witness’s credibility is not enough.
Fraud, Misrepresentation, or Misconduct by an Opposing Party — Rule 60(b)(3)
When the other side wins by cheating — hiding documents in discovery, submitting fabricated evidence, or lying under oath — this subsection provides the remedy. The moving party has to show the misconduct actually prevented them from fully and fairly presenting their case. A dishonest statement that did not affect the outcome will not support relief. Courts look for fraud that corrupted the process itself.
Void Judgments — Rule 60(b)(4)
A judgment is void when the issuing court lacked the authority to enter it. The usual scenarios involve no subject-matter jurisdiction over the type of case, no personal jurisdiction over the defendant, or a due process failure such as inadequate notice. Unlike every other 60(b) ground, this one is not discretionary. If the court lacked jurisdiction, the judgment is a legal nullity and must be set aside.
Satisfied, Superseded, or Prospectively Inequitable Judgments — Rule 60(b)(5)
Three related situations fall here. A judgment that has already been paid or discharged should not remain on the books to support double recovery. A judgment that rested on an earlier ruling now reversed or vacated has lost its legal foundation. And a judgment with prospective effect — most often an injunction or a consent decree governing ongoing conduct — can be modified or dissolved when circumstances have changed enough that continued enforcement is no longer fair.
Any Other Reason That Justifies Relief — Rule 60(b)(6)
The catch-all is genuinely narrow. Courts grant it only in circumstances so unusual that none of the first five grounds fits and leaving the judgment in place would produce serious injustice. Being unhappy with the result, a later change in the law, or missing the appeal deadline will not do it. Rule 60(b)(6) is also mutually exclusive with grounds (1) through (5), so a party cannot repackage a stale mistake, fraud, or new evidence claim as “extraordinary circumstances” to escape the one-year deadline. Courts watch for that tactic and reject it.
How Long You Have to File
Every Rule 60(b) motion must be filed within a “reasonable time,” which courts assess case by case. On top of that, grounds (1), (2), and (3) — mistake, newly discovered evidence, and fraud by a party — carry a hard one-year cap running from the entry of the judgment or the date of the proceeding that produced it. Miss that window and those claims are permanently barred as a matter of motion practice.
Grounds (4), (5), and (6) have no fixed outer deadline, but “reasonable time” still bites. Courts have denied motions filed years later when the movant offered no good explanation for the wait.
The Appeal-Clock Trap
This is the mistake that ends cases. A Rule 60(b) motion does not toll the deadline to file a notice of appeal. Rule 60(b) says so directly: the motion “does not affect the judgment’s finality or suspend its operation.” A Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment, by contrast, must be filed within 28 days and does toll the appeal clock.
If you file a 60(b) motion assuming it pauses the 30-day appeal window, and the window runs out while the motion is pending, your right to appeal the original judgment is gone. A litigant who wants to challenge the merits should seriously consider either filing a Rule 59(e) motion within the 28-day window, or filing a notice of appeal alongside the 60(b) motion to preserve appellate rights.
What Goes Into the Motion
A viable Rule 60(b) motion identifies the specific subsection invoked, sets out the factual basis with supporting affidavits and exhibits, and states clearly what relief is requested. Local rules for each federal district court often add formatting requirements and page limits worth checking before filing. The motion is filed through the federal CM/ECF system and served on all opposing parties.
After briefing, the judge may hold an oral hearing or decide on the papers. The court then issues a written order granting the motion, denying it, or setting conditions for further proceedings.
Enforcement Does Not Automatically Stop
Filing a 60(b) motion does not by itself halt collection. Rule 62(a) provides an automatic 30-day stay of enforcement after a judgment is entered, but that stay exists whether or not a 60(b) motion is filed. Once those 30 days pass, the judgment is enforceable unless the court orders otherwise. A party who needs continued protection can post a bond or other security under Rule 62(b) to keep enforcement paused while the motion is decided. Without a bond or a court order, the winning party can begin collecting even as the motion sits with the judge.
When an Appeal Is Already Pending
Because the 60(b) motion does not pause the appeal timeline, a motion and an appeal often end up pending at the same time. Once an appeal is docketed, the trial court generally loses jurisdiction over the case and cannot grant a 60(b) motion on its own.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1 provides the workaround: an “indicative ruling.” If the trial court would grant the motion but for the pending appeal, it can say so on the record. The movant then notifies the appellate court, which can remand the case so the trial court can act. If the trial court would deny the motion, it can simply do so; denial does not require appellate permission.
When Rule 60(b) Is Closed, Rule 60(d) May Still Be Open
Rule 60(d) preserves two paths to relief that sit outside the 60(b) framework and its deadlines.
The first is an independent action: a separate lawsuit filed to set aside the original judgment. It is governed by equitable principles and by the general statute of limitations and laches rather than by Rule 60(b)’s timing rules. Courts treat it as an extraordinary remedy and require a showing that would have justified relief under 60(b) had the motion route been available, plus a good explanation for why it was not.
The second is fraud on the court under Rule 60(d)(3). This is narrower and more serious than the party-versus-party fraud covered by 60(b)(3). It reaches conduct that corrupts the judicial process at a fundamental level — bribery of a judge, corruption of a court officer, or a scheme so pervasive that no genuine adversarial testing of the issues was possible. Because the target is the integrity of the system rather than injury to one side, there is no time limit. The evidentiary bar is intentionally steep. Being lied to in discovery is a 60(b)(3) claim; proving that opposing counsel fabricated an entire body of evidence and suborned perjury in a coordinated scheme to deceive the tribunal is a 60(d)(3) claim. Most misconduct allegations fall well short of that line.