In Re: Hicks v. , 118 F. App'x 778 ( 2005 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7122
In Re: CLARENCE HICKS,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-02-2076-L)
Submitted: December 15, 2004 Decided: January 11, 2005
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Petition granted by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Clarence Hicks filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion in
the District Court for the District of Maryland on June 19, 2002,
attacking his 2000 criminal conviction and 360-month sentence. The
Government responded to the motion on October 17, 2002, and Hicks
replied to the response in November of that year. No further
action has been taken in the case with the exception of numerous
motions filed by Hicks.
Hicks has petitioned this court for a writ of mandamus
complaining of the district court’s delay in acting on this case.
Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 21(b) and 4th Cir. R. 21, the
Government was directed to answer the petition and has done so.
The Government offers no explanation for the delay in the case.
Writs of habeas corpus are intended to afford a speedy remedy to
those illegally restrained. Johnson v. Rogers, 917 F.2d 1283, 1284
(10th Cir. 1990). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1657(a) (2000), the
district court must give priority to habeas corpus cases over other
civil cases.
As we conclude that Hicks has established a clear and
indisputable right to expeditious treatment of his § 2255 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
- 2 -
mandamus is granted. The district court is ordered to act on case
No. 02-2076 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
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION GRANTED
- 3 -