- 42 -
inequitable mistake that was made in the decision underlying that
deficiency. To my mind, if a District Court could have decided
such a motion, then so can we. This Court’s powers are
harmonious with the powers of a District Court. This Court’s
powers are different from the powers held by this Court’s
predecessors.
Although it is true that this Court is a court of limited
jurisdiction, so are all other Federal courts. All Federal
courts possess only that power authorized by Constitution and
statute and may not expand that power by judicial decree.
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994);
Ins. Corp. of Ir., Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456
U.S. 694, 701-702 (1982). The ability of this and every other
Federal Court to apply rule 60(b) principles to a final decision
flows from a finding that we and they had jurisdiction to render
and enter that decision in the first place. A court need not and
does not apply equitable principles to acquire jurisdiction in a
rule 60(b) proceeding. The court simply applies the principles
of that rule to a case over which it already has jurisdiction.
This Court’s well-established position on its equitable powers is
consistent with this tenet. In accordance with that position,
this Court has held that it may apply equitable principles to
dispose of cases over which the Court already has jurisdiction.
Page: Previous 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011