Opinion
No. 14-1448
11-18-2014
In re: M. EUGENE GIBBS-SQUIRES, Petitioner.
(D.C. No. 1:14-CV-00488-MSK-CBS)
(D. Colo.)
ORDER
Before GORSUCH, EBEL, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.
M. Eugene Gibbs-Squires seeks a writ of mandamus ordering the district court to rule on his pending "Amended Motion for Injunction," filed in April 2014. A response in opposition was filed June 2014. About a month later, Mr. Gibbs-Squires filed a motion to stay the entire case. The court has not ruled on either motion.
"[A] writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy, and is to be invoked only in extraordinary circumstances." In re Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 568 F.3d 1180, 1186 (10th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). "For mandamus to issue, there must be a clear right to the relief sought, a plainly defined and peremptory duty on the part of respondent to do the action in question, and no other adequate remedy available." Johnson v. Rogers, 917 F.2d 1283, 1285 (10th Cir. 1990). Although we have recognized that a fourteen-month delay in deciding a habeas case might be unreasonable, see id., a delay of six months in resolving a motion in this context is not unreasonable, especially in light of Mr. Gibbs-Squires's motion for a stay. Accordingly, the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.
Entered for the Court
/s/
ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk