Opinion
No. 08-56302.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed October 28, 2010.
Arza Feldman, Feldman Feldman, Uniondale, NY, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Jake Henderson, Corcoran, CA, pro se.
Daniel Rogers, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for Respondents-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Jeffrey T. Miller, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 3:06-cv-01554-JM.
Before: O'SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
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.
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.Ciu.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).