Case Name: In re Charles Anthony BENNETT, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-07-05
Citations: 13 F. App'x 146
Docket Number: No. 01-6547
Parties: In re Charles Anthony BENNETT, Petitioner.
Judges: Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit J.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 13
Pages: 146–146

Head Matter:
In re Charles Anthony BENNETT, Petitioner.
No. 01-6547.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted June 21, 2001.
Decided July 5, 2001.
Charles Anthony Bennett, petitioner pro se.
Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit J.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Charles A. Bennett has filed a petition for writ of mandamus asking this court to compel the district court to issue a decision on his motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2000). The granting of a writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used in extraordinary circumstances. In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir.1987). A petitioner must show that he has a clear right to the relief sought, that the respondent has a clear duty to perform the act requested by petitioner, and that there is no other adequate remedy available. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 869 F.2d 135, 138 (2nd Cir.1989). Bennett has failed to make the requisite showing for such extraordinary relief. Our review of the district court docket sheet discloses that there has been no undue delay in considering Bennett's § 2255 motion. Nevertheless, we urge the district court to act with reasonable promptness on Bennett's motion, which was filed on March 3, 2000. Accordingly, although we grant Bennett's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny his petition for writ of mandamus without prejudice to his filing another mandamus petition if the district court does not act expeditiously. 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.