Narrative Opinion Summary
Unpublished opinions lack binding precedent in this circuit. Jeffrey Cantrell Shaw filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, claiming undue delay by the district court in addressing his motion to recall and reconsider an earlier order that denied his Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment in his criminal case. Shaw requested a directive for the district court to act on this matter. However, the court found no evidence of undue delay in the district court's actions. As a result, the court granted Shaw's request to proceed in forma pauperis but denied the mandamus petition. Oral argument was deemed unnecessary as the facts and legal issues were sufficiently presented in the submitted materials. The petition is denied.
Legal Issues Addressed
Binding Precedent of Unpublished Opinionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Unpublished opinions do not serve as binding precedent within this circuit, impacting how the court's decision is applied and referenced.
Reasoning: Unpublished opinions lack binding precedent in this circuit.
In Forma Pauperis Statussubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The petitioner was granted the ability to proceed without the usual costs of a legal action due to financial constraints.
Reasoning: As a result, the court granted Shaw's request to proceed in forma pauperis but denied the mandamus petition.
Mandamus Relief for Undue Delaysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The petitioner requested mandamus relief due to perceived undue delay by the district court in handling his motion, but the court found no such delay, thus denying the petition.
Reasoning: Shaw filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, claiming undue delay by the district court in addressing his motion... However, the court found no evidence of undue delay in the district court's actions.
Necessity of Oral Argumentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that oral argument was unnecessary, given that the facts and issues were adequately presented in the written submissions.
Reasoning: Oral argument was deemed unnecessary as the facts and legal issues were sufficiently presented in the submitted materials.