502us2$19L 01-22-99 08:09:52 PAGES OPINPGT
Cite as: 502 U. S. 236 (1992)
241
Stevens, J., concurring in judgment
of the delay that has already occurred, any further postponements or extensions of time will be subject to a most rigorous scrutiny in this Court if the State of Washington files a further and meritorious petition for relief. The motion of respondent Charles R. Campbell for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The petition for writ of mandamus is Denied. Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Blackmun joins, concurring in the judgment. In recent years, the federal judiciary has done a magnificent job of handling a truly demanding appellate workload. On a national basis, the average time between notice of appeal and disposition is now less than 11 months. Although delays that are not fully justified occasionally occur, only in the most extraordinary circumstances would it be appropriate for this Court to issue a writ of mandamus to require a court of appeals to render its decision in a case under advisement.1 In its petition for a writ of mandamus, the State criticizes the Court of Appeals’ failure to rule on the merits of Campbell’s second habeas corpus petition, which was submitted in June 1989. In their response, the judges on the panel pro1 “The remedy of mandamus is a drastic one, to be invoked only in extraordinary situations.” Kerr v. United States District Court for Northern District of Cal., 426 U. S. 394, 402 (1976); see also Will v. United States, 389 U. S. 90, 95 (1967); Ex parte Fahey, 332 U. S. 258, 259 (1947). Mandamus “has traditionally been used in the federal courts only to confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction or to compel it to exercise its authority when it is its duty to do so.” Will, 389 U. S., at 95 (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, we have required that the party seeking issuance of the writ have no other adequate means to attain the desired relief, and that he demonstrate that his “right to issuance of the writ is ‘clear and indisputable.’ ” Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. Holland, 346 U. S. 379, 384 (1953), quoting United States v. Duell, 172 U. S. 576, 582 (1899).
