Justin Ringgold-Lockhart v. Myer J. Sankary
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
The Appellants, Nina Ringgold and Justin Ringgold-Lockhart, appeal from the district court’s order denying their motion for relief from judgment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.
We may only review a district court’s ruling on a Rule 60(b) motion for abuse of discretion. Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr. of Ill., 434 U.S. 257 , 263 n. 7, 98 S.Ct. 556 , 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978). The Appellants sought relief from the final order on the basis of newly discovered evidence, namely a May 23, 2011 letter of the California Commission on Judicial Performance. The letter was not relevant to the district court’s conclusion that the action was barred under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. It was therefore not an abuse of discretion to conclude that the discovery of the letter did not warrant relief from judgment.
The district court did not err by not granting the Appellants leave to amend their complaint. Amendment would have been futile in this case because it was clear that there was no basis for subject matter jurisdiction.
We deny the Appellants’ motion for judicial notice (Dkt. No. 71).