Case Name: Jake HENDERSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Derral G. ADAMS, et al., Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-10-28
Citations: 401 F. App'x 300
Docket Number: No. 08-56302
Parties: Jake HENDERSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Derral G. ADAMS, et al., Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 401
Pages: 300–300

Head Matter:
Jake HENDERSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Derral G. ADAMS, et al., Respondents-Appellees.
No. 08-56302.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.
Filed Oct. 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.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
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.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.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.