
    Justin RINGGOLD-LOCKHART and Nina Ringgold, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Myer J. SANKARY; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 11-57247.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 9, 2015.
    
    Filed April 28, 2015.
    Nina Ringgold, Law Office of Nina R. Ringgold, Northridge, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
    Andrea Lynn Rice, Law Offices of Andrea Lynn Rice, A. Prof. Corp., Santa Monica, CA, David M. Marcus, Esquire, Marcus, Watanabe & Dave, Susan K. Smith, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Syna N. Dennis, Esquire, Los Angeles, CA, Eric Chomsky, Esquire, Marina Del Rey, CA, Anthony R. Hakl, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, AGCA-Offiee of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Marc L. Edwards, Esquire, Tarzana, CA, pro se.
    Before: REINHARDT, McKEOWN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   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).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     