judgment procedure. But the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying their Rule 60(b) motion. See Edward H. Bohlin Co., 6 F.3d at 357 (“Gross carelessness, ignorance of the rules, or ignorance of the law are insufficient bases for 60(b)(1) relief.”). The Sangis also contend that the district court should have granted the motion to reconsider based on newly discovered evidence. Rule 60(b)(2) permits relief for evidence “which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b)”). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Rule 60(b)(2) relief because the record indicates that the Sangis did not pursue discovery with due diligence. See New Hampshire Ins. Co. v. Martech USA, Inc., 993 F.2d 1195, 1201 (5th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, the Sangis have failed to show that
holding that prisoner must demonstrate that interference with his legal mail actually injured him in order to succeed on a righttocourtaccess claim holding that movant must demonstrate that irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction holding that to show good cause a movant must demonstrate that despite their diligence they could not meet the original deadline holding that a defendant must show actual prejudice to succeed on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim holding a movant must demonstrate that it exercised due diligence in obtaining the information to succeed on a motion brought under 60b2