Gibbs-Squires et al v. Urban Settlement Services et al

Filing 76

USCA ORDER denying 74 Emergency Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed by M. Eugene Gibbs-Squires on 11/18/14. (dkals, )

Appellate Case: 14-1448

Document: 01019342877

Date Filed: 11/18/2014

Page: 1
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court

In re: M. EUGENE GIBBS-SQUIRES,
Petitioner.

November 18, 2014

No. 14-1448
(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

Appellate Case: 14-1448

Document: 01019342877

Date Filed: 11/18/2014

Page: 2

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

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

-2-