Case ID: f-appx_9/html/0282-01.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 Alfred F. WORLEY, Petitioner.
    No. 01-6578.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted May 31, 2001.
    Decided June 11, 2001.
    Alfred F. Worley, petitioner pro se.
    Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Alfred F. Worley petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging undue delay by the district court in ruling on his pending 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000) petition and asking that this court rule on the petition. A writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy and should be granted only in those extraordinary situations when no other remedy is available. See In re: Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). We recently vacated the district court’s original decision denying Worley’s § 2254 petition and remanded for further proceedings. Worley v. O’Dell, 6 Fed. Appx. 123 (4th Cir.2001) (unpublished). The district court must be afforded a reasonable amount of time to comply with our remand instructions. We find that there has been no undue delay, and Worley is not entitled to the relief he seeks. Accordingly, although we grant Worley’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny mandamus relief. 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 DENIED.