USCA11 Case: 19-15178 Date Filed: 11/05/2020 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 19-15178
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket Nos. 2:16-cv-00637-WKW-GMB,
2:17-cv-00031-WKW-GMB
MORRIS SANDERS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Alabama
________________________
(November 5, 2020)
Before ROSENBAUM, NEWSOM, and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
USCA11 Case: 19-15178 Date Filed: 11/05/2020 Page: 2 of 3
Morris Sanders, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s denial of
his Rule 60(b)(6) motion for relief from judgment originally entered in his
employment discrimination suit against his former employer, Wal-Mart Stores
East, L.P. After review,1 we affirm the district court.
Rule 60(b) motions allow a party to be relieved from a judgment due to:
(1) “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect”; (2) “newly discovered
evidence” which could not have been discovered earlier “with reasonable
diligence”; (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or an adverse party’s misconduct; (4) a
void judgment; (5) satisfaction, release, or discharge, or the prior judgment’s
reversal or vacatur, or it would not be equitable to apply the judgment
prospectively; or (6) “any other reason that justifies relief.” See Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b)(1)-(6).
“Rule 60(b)(6) [is] the catchall provision of the Rule.” Cano v. Baker,
435
F.3d 1337, 1342 (11th Cir. 2006). These “motions must demonstrate ‘that the
circumstances are sufficiently extraordinary to warrant relief.’”
Id. at 1342. “Even
then, whether to grant the requested relief is a matter for the district court’s sound
discretion.”
Id. (alteration omitted). Rule 60(b)(6) “relief . . . is an extraordinary
1
We “typically review[] a district court’s ruling upon a Rule 60(b) motion for abuse of
discretion.” Burke v. Smith,
252 F.3d 1260, 1263 (11th Cir. 2001). Under this standard, a party
must show, not only that it may have been permissible or warranted to grant the Rule 60(b)
motion, but that denying the motion was “sufficiently unwarranted as to amount to an abuse of
discretion.” Griffin v. Swim-Tech Corp.,
722 F.2d 677, 680 (11th Cir. 1984).
2
USCA11 Case: 19-15178 Date Filed: 11/05/2020 Page: 3 of 3
remedy which may be invoked only upon a showing of exceptional
circumstances.” Griffin v. Swim-Tech Corp.,
722 F.2d 677, 680 (11th Cir. 1984).
Further, “[t]he party seeking relief has the burden of showing that absent such
relief, an ‘extreme’ and ‘unexpected’ hardship will result.”
Id.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Sanders’ Rule
60(b)(6) motion. The district court afforded Sanders a full and fair opportunity to
litigate his claims before it entered a final judgment against him in 2018, this Court
did likewise before resolving his 2019 appeal, and Sanders does not contend
otherwise. Notwithstanding the belated identification of two co-workers as
witnesses, Sanders’ motion does not present the “exceptional circumstances”
necessary for this “extraordinary remedy.” See
id. Thus, the district court did not
abuse its discretion in denying his Rule 60(b)(6) motion. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
3
