Document: 502 U.S. 236 112 S.Ct. 674 116 L.Ed.2d 669 In re James BLODGETT, Superintendent, Washington State Penitentiary, et al. No. 91-716. Jan. 13, 1992. PER CURIAM. 1 The Court has before it a petition from the of for writ mandamus to Appeals Ninth Circuit. seeks an order directing issue its decision on appeal District Court's denial second federal habeas in capital case. was argued and submitted June 27, 1989, no been forthcoming. 2 Charles Rodman Campbell convicted multiple murders 1982 sentenced death. After his conviction affirmed direct we denied certiorari, v. Washington, 471 1094, 105 2169, 85 526 (1985), first filed July 1985 United States Western Washington. Proceedings that matter were completed when certiorari November 1988. Kincheloe, 488 948, 109 380, 102 369. No relief granted. 3 March 1989 same Court. court acted with commendable dispatch, holding hearing issuing written opinion denying stay or other within days after filed. On 28, appealed granted indefinite execution set briefing schedule. case but announced remains effect. Attorney General sent letters panel April October 1990 inquiring about status case, neither letter answered. 4 January motion withdraw certain issues consideration by Circuit panel, he renewed this April. took action. third state action collateral relief, personal restraint petition, Supreme September, again moved three still under submission, leaving eight others be decided. did not respond until February 21, 1991, noted Campbell's issues, requested report proceedings, vacated own submission Both responded all pending had exhausted. resubmitted, do so. 5 merits 1991. 10, document advising desired discharge attorneys proceed pro se would file At point more than two years passed since heard oral argument Almost months later, August 7, relieve counsel, directed 30, intention wait ruling taking further schedule petition. 6 25, now us 22 members response. Neither response nor record reveals any plausible explanation reason panel's delay resolving 1990. addresses events indicates 1991 because if have become moot. It stated avoid piecemeal appeals awaiting formed Death Penalty Task Force objective eliminating successive petitions consolidation last is consistent objective. 7 over year unexplained, fact compounded followed. orders vacate completion proceeding then hold abeyance filing resolution raise very concerns regarding part rationale decisions Rose Lundy, 455 509, 1198, 71 379 (1982) McCleskey Zant, 499 ---, 111 1454, 113 517 (1991). Adherence those decisions, their prompt enforcement district courts appeals, will obviate many cases what here seems perceive necessity accommodating filings. 8 As Force, reports joint committees bench bar should urgent concern persons responsibility administration justice Circuit, ordinary course legal proceedings constant duty judges duties diligence precision cannot suspended await recommendations. 9 None reasons offered dispels our sustained severe prejudice two-and-a-half execution. prevented exercising sovereign power enforce criminal law, interest found great weight discussing importance finality context corpus proceedings. Id., at 1468-1469. Given potential consider Cambell's claim without delay. Our law suggests expedited review proper. Barefoot Estelle, 463 880, 895, 103 3383, 3395-3396, 77 1090 (1983) ("Even where concluded [successive habeas] dismissed Rule 9(b), proper expedite petition"). demonstrates rule make explicit. grant imposes concomitant take steps necessary ensure matter, give full fair presented 10 Despite continuing concerns, decline time. While there are grounds question both propriety Circuit's Blodgett, 940 F.2d 549, objection it. lodged Appeals, citing cites us. True, taken some wrote twice inquire And vacating objected asked resubmitted decision. could made requests little chance success. But as predicate extraordinary modify coming here. This 20.1 ("To justify granting provision, must shown . adequate obtained form court"). 11 mandamus, determine how best appeal, given present posture Denial right seek request unnecessary delays unwarranted stays occur disposition matter. view already occurred postponements extensions time subject most rigorous scrutiny files meritorious relief. 12 respondent R. leave forma pauperis 13 Denied. 14 Justice STEVENS, whom BLACKMUN joins, concurring judgment. 15 recent years, judiciary done magnificent job handling truly demanding appellate workload. national basis, average between notice less months. Although fully justified occasionally occur, only circumstances appropriate require render advisement.1 16 criticizes Appeals' failure which 1989. response, provide completely satisfactory defer petition—namely, desire litigation address claims single ruling. Because alone sufficient mandate State's occasion explain pre-July 17 showed respect court. expresses expediting Campbell, notably silent considered raised substantial. court, dissent Utter, appointed scheduled briefing, argument, addressed several claims. these facts, sound, enables entire one ultimate matter.2 18 I am sure intend send such message, today may read open invitation every stayed unfortunate because, Kerr Northern California, 426 394, 403, 96 2119, 2124, 48 725 (1976), "particularly era excessively crowded lower dockets, discourage litigation." 19 Moreover, so frequently recognized, disfavored "the consequence making judge litigant, obliged obtain counsel defense litigants [appearing] him." Ex parte Fahey, 332 258, 260, 67 1558, 1559, 91 L.Ed. 2041 (1947). Mandamus "extraordinary remed[y] reserved really causes," ibid., precisely fellow jurists. situation unduly delayed rather chosen repetitive consolidating appeals. Respect means providing them latitude burgeoning due deference whose dockets discretionary ours. 20 For foregoing reasons, failed comply 20.1, believe summarily. "The remedy drastic one, invoked situations." 402, 2123, (1976); see also Will States, 389 90, 95, 88 269, 273, 305 (1967); 259, "has traditionally used confine inferior lawful exercise prescribed jurisdiction compel authority so." Will, U.S., S.Ct., 273 (internal quotation omitted). Accordingly, required party seeking issuance attain demonstrate "right 'clear indisputable.' " Bankers Life & Casualty Co. Holland, 346 379, 384, 74 145, 148, 98 106 (1953), quoting Duell, 172 576, 582, 286, 287, 43 559 (1899). facts "severe prejudice" perceived illusory. Even decide ruled recognize much, asks permitted Pet. Writ 9.

Category: 0