[DO NOT PUBLISH]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: 1 of 3
2

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). 

USCA11 Case: 19-15178 Date Filed: 11/05/2020 Page: 2 of 3
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.

USCA11 Case: 19-15178 Date Filed: 11/05/2020 Page: 3 of 3