Jake Henderson v. Derral Adams

401 F. App'x 300
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedOctober 28, 2010
Docket08-56302
StatusUnpublished

This text of 401 F. App'x 300 (Jake Henderson v. Derral Adams) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Jake Henderson v. Derral Adams, 401 F. App'x 300 (9th Cir. 2010).

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Straw v. Bowen
866 F.2d 1167 (Ninth Circuit, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
401 F. App'x 300, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jake-henderson-v-derral-adams-ca9-2010.