In Re: Time Warner Cable, Inc., 470 F. App'x 389

This mandamus action arises from district court delays after this court held that excluding only certain incumbents from a statewide franchise violated the First Amendment.
This court previously remanded for expeditious action and instructed handling of remand proceedings.
Plaintiffs sought a injunction enjoining enforcement of the unconstitutional exclusion; the district court delayed action for more than thirty days without response.
PUC denied Time Warner's statewide franchise on remand due to the district court's inaction, despite this court's ruling.
Over 100 days after judgment, the district court denied the plaintiffs' motion and stayed proceedings pending Supreme Court certiorari.
The panel declined to issue mandamus, citing the district court's denial being immediately appealable and noting available expedited appeal routes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether mandamus should issue to compel district court action on remand	Plaintiffs contend the district court must implement the mandate without delay	Defendants contend mandamus is inappropriate where an adequate remedy exists by immediate appeal	Mandamus denied; appeal is available

Time Warner Cable Inc. v. Hudson, 667 F.3d 630 (5th Cir. 2012) (exclusion of incumbents from a statewide franchise violates the First Amendment)
United States v. Lee, 358 F.3d 315 (5th Cir. 2004) (mandamus and mandate compliance principles for remands)
League of United Latin Am. Citizens, Dist. 19 v. City of Boerne, 659 F.3d 421 (5th Cir. 2012) (lower court cannot deviate from appellate mandate)
Briggs v. Penn. R.R. Co., 334 U.S. 304 (1948) (mandamus and compliance with appellate directives)
Byrne v. Roemer, 847 F.2d 1130 (5th Cir. 1988) (stay and withdrawal of power to delay relief)
In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008) (en banc for mandamus standards)
Gen. Atomic Co. v. Felter, 436 U.S. 493 (1976) (mandate execution should not require re-litigation of issues already decided)