Case ID: f-appx_294/html/0947-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Enrique Moreno SANCHES, Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES PROBATION OFFICE; Dick Leonard; G. Rudolph Garza, Jr.; Armando Flores, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 08-40110
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Oct. 3, 2008.
    Enrique Moreno Sanches, U.S. Penitentiary Atlanta, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Daniel David Hu, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, Defendants-Appellees.
    Before KING, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Enrique Moreno Sanches, federal prisoner # 61759-079, appeals the district court’s denial of his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion to reopen, which was filed more than 11 years after the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. He argues that the district court erred by construing his motion as based on Rule 60(b)(1); instead, Sanches argues that his motion was based on Rule 60(b)(6), which he asserts does not have a time limit.

We conclude that, because Sanches’s motion is untimely under either subsection, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. A motion based on Rule 60(b)(1) must be made not more than one year after the entry of judgment; a motion based on Rule 60(b)(6) must be brought “within a reasonable time.” Fed.R.CivP. 60(c)(1). It is undisputed that Sanches’s motion was not filed until more than 11 years after the district court’s dismissal of his § 1983 complaint; therefore, it clearly was untimely under subsection (b)(1). We also conclude that Sanches has not shown that his motion was filed within a reasonable time or that extraordinary circumstances exist that would warrant relief under Rule 60(b)(6). See Hess v. Cockrell, 281 F.3d 212, 216 (5th Cir.2002); Edwards v. City of Houston, 78 F.3d 983, 995 (5th Cir.1996) (en banc).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.