Case ID: f-appx_608/html/0161-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In re Anthony McQUEEN, Petitioner.
    No. 14-2137.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: June 25, 2015.
    Decided: July 1, 2015.
    Anthony McQueen, Petitioner Pro Se.
    Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
   Petition granted by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Anthony McQueen petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend judgment docketed on November 19, 2013. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976).

Our review of the district court’s docket reveals that no significant action has occurred related to the motion since it was docketed on November 19, 2013. We find that the delay in acting on McQueen’s motion filed in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) proceeding is excessive and warrants granting a writ of mandamus. Johnson v. Rogers, 917 F.2d 1283, 1285 (10th Cir.1990); In re Funkhouser, 873 F.2d 1076, 1077 (8th Cir.1989). Accordingly, we grant McQueen’s motion to proceed in for-ma pauperis and direct the district court to act on McQueen’s motion filed in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) proceeding within 30 days after the date of this opinion.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION GRANTED.