FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 28 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUSTIN RINGGOLD-LOCKHART and No. 11-57247
NINA RINGGOLD,
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-09215-R-RC
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v. MEMORANDUM*
MYER J. SANKARY; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Manuel L. Real, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 9, 2015**
Pasadena, California
Before: REINHARDT, McKEOWN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
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.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
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
(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).
AFFIRMED.
2