Jake Henderson v. Derral Adams
Jake HENDERSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Derral G. ADAMS, Et Al., Respondents-Appellees
- Proceeding
- appeal
- Trial court
- United States District Court for the Southern District of California
- Trial judge
- Jeffrey T. Miller (district judge)
- Outcome
- affirmed — AFFIRMED.
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain (author), Carlos T. Bea, Richard C. Tallman
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 28 2010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