Morris Sanders v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, No. 18-11524 (11th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on January 2, 2019.
Download PDF
USCA11 Case: 19-15178 Date Filed: 11/05/2020 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 19-15178 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C.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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
