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.