Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-02137/USCOURTS-ca4-14-02137-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Anthony McQueen
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-2137

In Re: ANTHONY MCQUEEN,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

(1:04-cr-00257-CMH-1; 1:07-cv-00871-CMH)

Submitted: June 25, 2015 Decided: July 1, 2015

Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Petition granted by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony McQueen, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-2137 Doc: 9 Filed: 07/01/2015 Pg: 1 of 2
2

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 (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 forma 

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

Appeal: 14-2137 Doc: 9 Filed: 07/01/2015 Pg: 2 of 2