JUSTIN RINGGOLD-LOCKHART V. MYER J. SANKARY, No. 11-57247 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 28 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUSTIN RINGGOLD-LOCKHART and NINA RINGGOLD, No. 11-57247 D.C. No. 2:09-cv-09215-R-RC Plaintiffs - Appellants, MEMORANDUM* v. 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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.