Jake Henderson v. Derral G. Adams

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAKE HENDERSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DERRAL G. ADAMS, et al.,
Respondents - Appellees.
No. 08-56302
D.C. No. 3:06-cv-01554-JM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Jeffrey T. Miller, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 19, 2010**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Jake Henderson appeals from the district court’s order denying his Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 59 motion for reconsideration challenging the dismissal of
his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and
we affirm.
FILED
OCT 28 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-56302 2
Henderson contends that the district abused its discretion by denying his
motion, which we construe as a motion for relief from final judgment based on
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). See Straw v. Bowen, 866 F.2d 1167, 1171-
72 (9th Cir. 1989). The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied
Henderson’s motion because his almost two-year delay before filing the motion
was not reasonable. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c) (“A motion under Rule 60(b) must
be made within a reasonable time . . . .”); In re Hammer, 940 F.2d 524, 526 (9th
Cir. 1991) (holding that it was not an abuse of discretion to find an unexcused
two-year delay unreasonable).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --