FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 28 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAKE HENDERSON, No. 08-56302
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:06-cv-01554-JM
v.
MEMORANDUM *
DERRAL G. ADAMS, et al.,
Respondents - Appellees.
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.
*
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).
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 08-56302