Azam

MEMORANDUM **

Zameer R. Azam, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s two post-judgment orders in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action claiming defamation, denial of due process rights, and malicious prosecution. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for abuse of discretion, Harman v. Harper, 7 F.3d 1455, 1458 (9th Cir.1993), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Azam’s post-judgment motions seeking enlargement of time to file a motion for reconsideration or for relief from judgment. The district court had no power to extend the time to file a Rule 59(e) motion. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b)(2) (“A court must not extend the time to act under Rule[ ] 59(e).... ”); Fed. R.Civ.P. 59(e) (“A motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 10 days after the entry of the judgment.”); Harman, 7 F.3d at 1458 . The district court also properly explained that Rule 60(a) does not have a specific deadline and that Azam had “a reasonable time” but less than a year to file a Rule 60(b) motion.

As stated in the August 19, 2008 order, Azam did not file a timely tolling motion and did not file a notice of…