¶1 James Claude Bailey petitions for writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C. *596 § 2255 (2000) motion and his motion for immediate release. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. We find there has been no undue delay in the district court. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in for-ma pauperis, we deny Bailey’s mandamus petition and his motion for appointment of counsel. We further deny as moot his motion for expedited response. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
¶2 PETITION DENIED