William D. Jackson, Appellant, v. Congress of the United States, 946 F.2d 1565 (D.C. Cir. 1991)

Upon consideration of the dispositive motion, which is construed as a motion for summary reversal, the filing entitled "Case Mismanagement," which is construed as a motion for expedition, and the petition for writ of mandamus, it is

ORDERED that the motion for summary reversal be denied. It is

FURTHER ORDERED, on the court's own motion, that the district court's order filed September 12, 1990 be summarily affirmed. Because appellant's complaint lacks an arguable basis in law or fact, the complaint is frivolous. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Brandon v. District of Columbia Board of Parole, 734 F.2d 56, 59 (D.C. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1127 (1985). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for expedition be dismissed as moot. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for writ of mandamus be denied. Appellant is not entitled to the extraordinary remedy of mandamus. See Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacama Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 289 (1988).

The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing. See D.C. Cir. Rule 15.