Doyle, vs. Archuleta, et al

Filing 61

USCA ORDER re: 3 Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Michael Doyle. Mr. Doyle seeks a writ of mandamus ordering the district court to decide his pending §2254 motion. The district court is invited to respond to the mandamus petition. Any response should be filed within 60 days of the date of this order. Mr. Doyle's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. USCA case no. 09-1426. (bjrsl, )

Case: 09-1426

Document: 01018316936

Date Filed: U n i t e d States Court 1 Appeals 11/20/2009 Page: of T e n t h Circuit

FILED

N o v e m b e r 20, 2009
U N I T E D STATES COURT OF APPEALSl i s a b e t h A. Shumaker E F O R THE TENTH CIRCUIT
C l e r k of Court

I n re: M I C H A E L DOYLE, Petitioner. N o . 09-1426 ( D . C . No. 1:07-CV-01358-PAB-KMT) ( D . Colo.)

ORDER B e f o r e BRISCOE, TYMKOVICH, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges. M i c h a e l Doyle seeks a writ of mandamus ordering the district court to d e c i d e his pending 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas application. The application was f i l e d in June 2007, and the case was at issue in September 2007. Thus, the case h a s now been pending for twenty-eight months since it was at issue. It has been f i v e months since the magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation and M r . Doyle filed his objections. "We understand the tension between the court's heavy case load and the n e e d to hear and determine all cases in a timely manner. However, writs of h a b e a s corpus are intended to afford a swift and imperative remedy in all cases of i l l e g a l restraint or confinement." Johnson v. Rogers, 917 F.2d 1283, 1284 ( 1 0 t h Cir. 1990). While five months is not an inordinate delay, especially in light o f the numerous motions Mr. Doyle has filed, we recognize that the case as a

Case: 09-1426

Document: 01018316936

Date Filed: 11/20/2009

Page: 2

w h o l e has been pending for more than two years. Cf. id. at 1285 (holding i mp e r mi s s i b l e a fourteen-month delay in deciding a habeas application due to d o c k e t congestion). Thus, we invite the district court to respond to the mandamus p e t i t i o n . Any response should be filed within sixty days of the date of this order. Mr. Doyle's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. Entered for the Court,

E L I S A B E T H A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

-2-