FRCP 60: six grounds, a one-year cap on three of them, and a motion that stays nothing
Federal procedure · Last verified August 17, 2026
Rule 60 is where a federal case goes after the Rule 59 window closes. It is not an appeal, it is not a second chance to argue the merits, and — a point that catches people out — filing it does not stop the judgment from being enforced.
The six grounds
Rule 60(b): on motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.
Two observations about the drafting.
Ground (2) is defined by reference to Rule 59(b). Evidence that could have been found in time to move for a new trial is not "newly discovered" for Rule 60 purposes. The two rules are meant to be read as one sequence, not as alternatives.
Ground (3) is limited to an opposing party. Fraud or misconduct by a non-party does not fit subdivision (b)(3) — though Rule 60(d)(3) separately preserves the power to set aside a judgment for fraud on the court, which is a different and narrower thing.
Ground (6) is residual, not cumulative. It is available for reasons the first five do not reach. A motion that is really an out-of-time ground (1) does not become a ground (6) by being labeled one.
The timing
Rule 60(c)(1):
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.
Two limits, working together.
Reasonable time applies to all six grounds, including (4), (5) and (6). A void-judgment motion brought after years of inaction still has to be reasonable.
The one year caps only the first three. And it is an outer limit, not a safe harbor — a motion filed at eleven months can still fail the reasonable-time requirement.
The year runs from entry of the judgment or order, or the date of the proceeding. Compare Alaska, whose Rule 60(b) runs its year from the date of notice of the judgment under its Rule 58.1(c) — a meaningfully later date for a defendant who learns of a judgment long after entry.
The motion does not stay anything
Rule 60(c)(2):
The motion does not affect the judgment's finality or suspend its operation.
So the judgment remains final for appeal purposes and remains enforceable while the motion is pending. If you need enforcement stopped, that is a separate application — Rule 62 governs stays, and the guide on staying a federal judgment covers it.
This is the single most common practical error in Rule 60 practice: filing the motion and assuming the execution clock has paused.
What Rule 60 does not limit
Rule 60(d) preserves three powers outside the rule's structure:
This rule does not limit a court's power to: (1) entertain an independent action to relieve a party from a judgment, order, or proceeding; (2) grant relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1655 to a defendant who was not personally notified of the action; or (3) set aside a judgment for fraud on the court.
None of the three is bounded by the one year.
Paragraph (2) is the route for a defendant who never had personal notice — the federal analogue to the provisions Oregon keeps in ORCP 71 C and Washington in CR 60(b)(7).
Paragraph (3) is narrower than ground (b)(3). Fraud on the court goes to the integrity of the judicial process itself, not merely to misconduct between the parties.
Rule 60(e) — abolished remedies: "bills of review, bills in the nature of bills of review, and writs of coram nobis, coram vobis, and audita querela." The motion, or an independent action, is the route.
Clerical mistakes — Rule 60(a)
The court may correct a clerical mistake or a mistake arising from oversight or omission whenever one is found in a judgment, order, or other part of the record. The court may do so on motion or on its own, with or without notice. But after an appeal has been docketed in the appellate court and while it is pending, such a mistake may be corrected only with the appellate court's leave.
No time limit at all, and the court may act on its own without notice.
The line between Rule 60(a) and Rule 60(b) is whether the judgment says what the court decided. Fixing a transposed figure or a misspelled party is Rule 60(a). Changing what was decided is Rule 60(b), with all its constraints.
Rule 59, and choosing between them
Rule 60(b)(2)'s cross-reference makes Rule 59 the first question.
Rule 59(a)(1) — grounds for a new trial: the court may grant a new trial on all or some issues, and to any party,
(A) after a jury trial, for any reason for which a new trial has heretofore been granted in an action at law in federal court; or (B) after a nonjury trial, for any reason for which a rehearing has heretofore been granted in a suit in equity in federal court.
The grounds come from accumulated practice, not from a numbered list — the same drafting approach Hawaii uses in its Rule 59(a).
Rule 59(a)(2) — nonjury trials: on a new trial motion the court "may open the judgment if one has been entered, take additional testimony, amend findings of fact and conclusions of law or make new ones, and direct the entry of a new judgment." A wider remedy than a new trial as such.
The deadlines — all 28 days from entry of judgment:
| Motion | Rule | Deadline |
|---|---|---|
| New trial | 59(b) | 28 days after entry |
| Court's own initiative | 59(d) | 28 days after entry |
| Alter or amend the judgment | 59(e) | 28 days after entry |
| Judgment as a matter of law, renewed | 50(b) | 28 days after entry |
| Amended or additional findings | 52(b) | 28 days after entry |
Affidavits — Rule 59(c): when a new trial motion is based on affidavits, "they must be filed with the motion." The opposing party has 14 days after being served to file opposing affidavits, and the court may permit reply affidavits.
Rule 59(d) — reasons not in the motion: the court may, on its own, order a new trial within 28 days for any reason that would justify granting one on a party's motion; and "after giving the parties notice and an opportunity to be heard, the court may grant a timely motion for a new trial for a reason not stated in the motion." Either way, "the court must specify the reasons in its order."
Which motion, when
| Situation | Motion | Deadline |
|---|---|---|
| Trial error, insufficient evidence, excessive verdict | Rule 59(a) new trial | 28 days |
| The judgment as entered needs changing | Rule 59(e) alter or amend | 28 days |
| Findings after a bench trial are wrong | Rule 52(b) | 28 days |
| Verdict unsupported as a matter of law | Rule 50(b) | 28 days |
| Mistake, excusable neglect, fraud, new evidence | Rule 60(b)(1)–(3) | reasonable time, max 1 year |
| Judgment void, satisfied, or no longer equitable | Rule 60(b)(4)–(5) | reasonable time |
| Something else entirely | Rule 60(b)(6) | reasonable time |
| Clerical slip | Rule 60(a) | any time |
| Never personally notified | Rule 60(d)(2), § 1655 | outside the year |
| Fraud on the court | Rule 60(d)(3) | outside the year |
The 28-day deadlines are among those Rule 6(b)(2) forbids the court to extend. The cross-jurisdiction guide on post-trial motions covers that cluster.
How the federal rule compares
| Federal | Washington | Oregon | Alaska | Hawaii | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grounds | 6, with a catch-all | 11 | 5, no catch-all | 6, with a catch-all | 6, with a catch-all |
| One-year cap on | (1), (2), (3) | (1), (2), (3) — fraud excluded | (a), (b), (c) | (1), (2), (3) | (1), (2), (3) |
| Year runs from | entry | entry | entry | date of notice | entry |
| Reasonable time applies to | all grounds | all grounds | all grounds | all grounds | all grounds |
| Motion suspends the judgment | no | no | no | no | no |
| Proposed pleading or judgment required | no | no | a pleading, grounds (a)–(c) | a judgment and separate order | no |
| New trial deadline | 28 days | 10 days | 10 days, extendable | — | 10 days |
A short checklist
- Check the calendar first. Inside 28 days of entry, Rule 59 is available and usually better. Outside it, Rule 60 is the route.
- Diary one year from entry for grounds (1), (2) and (3) — and do not treat it as a target. Reasonable time applies throughout.
- Pick a ground that fits. Ground (6) reaches what the others do not; it does not revive them.
- If the fraud was by a non-party, look at Rule 60(d)(3), not (b)(3).
- If you were never personally notified, Rule 60(d)(2) and § 1655 sit outside the year.
- Ask for a stay separately. Rule 60(c)(2) is explicit that the motion suspends nothing.
- For newly discovered evidence, be ready on diligence — and on why it could not have surfaced in time for a Rule 59(b) motion.
- If it is a clerical slip, use Rule 60(a) — no deadline, and available on the court's own motion. But get the appellate court's leave if an appeal is docketed.
- Watch the appeal clock. A Rule 60 motion filed late does not extend the time to appeal the underlying judgment.
Where these rules live
- FRCP 6 — Computing and extending time
- FRCP 50 — Judgment as a matter of law in a jury trial
- FRCP 52 — Findings and conclusions by the court
- FRCP 54 — Judgment; costs
- FRCP 55 — Default; default judgment
- FRCP 58 — Entering judgment
- FRCP 59 — New trial; altering or amending a judgment
- FRCP 60 — Relief from a judgment or order
- FRCP 62 — Stay of proceedings to enforce a judgment
Appellate deadlines are set by the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, which this site doesn't cover, and a post-judgment motion can affect them. This page explains what the rules say. It isn't legal advice.