Kroncke
Kroncke v. Saldate
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Robert Earl Kroncke appeals pro se the district court’s order denying his Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for relief from judgment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for abuse of discretion, see Allmerica Fin. Life Ins. & Annuity Co. v. Llewellyn, 139 F.3d 664 , 665 (9th Cir.1997), and we affirm, and remand.
The district court dismissed Kroncke’s action with prejudice under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Kroncke then moved for relief from judgment, arguing that he meant to include only two, not four, causes of action in his federal complaint. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Kroncke relief from judgment, because his mistake in alleging two extra causes of action did not eonstitute excusable neglect. See United States ex rel. Familian Northwest, Inc. v. RG & B Contractors, Inc., 21 F.3d 952, 956 (9th Cir.1994) (holding that not every error in the course of litigation will qualify as excusable neglect); see Llewellyn, 139 F.3d at 666 (“[njeither ignorance nor carelessness on the part of the litigant or his attorney provide grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)(1)”) (citation omitted).