In Re: Hicks v. ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 07-7614
    In Re:   CLARENCE HICKS,
    Petitioner,
    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
    (1:98-cr-00259-BEL-9; 1:02-cv-02076-BEL)
    Submitted:   May 16, 2008                   Decided:    May 29, 2008
    Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Petition granted by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Clarence Hicks, Petitioner Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Clarence Hicks has petitioned this court for a writ of
    mandamus, complaining of delay in the district court.        Finding
    substantial delay below, we grant the mandamus petition.
    Following the district court’s ruling in a 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2000) motion filed by Clarence Hicks, Hicks filed a motion
    under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).    The district court entered an order
    in April 2006 addressing Hicks’s motion, dismissing some of the
    claims therein and ordering the Government to respond to the
    remaining claims.   The Government responded in July 2006.    Hicks
    sought leave of the court to reply to that response, which was
    granted on August 2, 2006.   No further action has been taken in the
    district court regarding the Rule 60(b).
    As we conclude that Hicks has established a clear and
    indisputable right to expeditious treatment of his Rule 60(b)
    motion, and no other adequate remedy is available, we find that he
    has shown his entitlement to the writ of mandamus.       See Allied
    Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 
    449 U.S. 33
    , 35 (1980); In re Beard,
    
    811 F.2d 818
    , 826 (4th Cir. 1987).      Therefore, the petition for
    writ of mandamus is granted.   The district court is ordered to act
    on the Rule 60(b) motion pending in case No. 1:98-cr-00259-BEL-9;
    1:02-cv-02076-BEL within sixty days of the date of this opinion.
    We grant Hicks leave to proceed in forma pauperis.      We dispense
    with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
    - 2 -
    adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
    would not aid the decisional process.
    PETITION GRANTED
    - 3 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-7614

Judges: Niemeyer, Michael, Hamilton

Filed Date: 5/29/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024