morning. However, he asserted that he hoped to represent Plaintiff if the case were reopened. 9 .Plaintiff testified that attorney Weeks advised her to let Watkins and Andrews proceed with reopening her case. 10 . Decisions of the former Fifth Circuit rendered prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981 are binding precedent in the Eleventh Circuit. Bonner v. City of Prichard, Ala., 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir.1981). 11 . Dr. Kilgore’s testimony that he observed a gradual but severe decline in Watkins' health in the two to three years prior to the grievance proceeding is not conclusive of Watkins’ alleged incapacitation from the date of removal to the date of dismissal. Compare Benjamin v. Lockhart, No. 94-3020, 1996 WL 44197, *3 (E.D.La. Feb. 2, 1996) (citation omitted) (<HOLDING>) with Russell v. Henderson, No.
recognizing rule holding that a motion that alleged rule 60b1 grounds could not be treated as a rule 60b6 motion in the absence of allegations of aggravating circumstances recognizing that debilitating illness which precludes all participation in the litigation may constitute compelling reason for relief under rule 60b6 holding that rule 60b6 may be used to grant relief in case of extreme and undue hardship holding that relief under rule 60b6 is not available unless the other clauses 1 through 5 are inapplicable