PER CURIAM:
Frantz Cadet petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed ruling on a document that he filed on August 9, 2011 in response to the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (West Supp.2011) motion. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. Based on our review of the record, we deny Cadet’s petition for writ of mandamus without prejudice. Although Cadet has not properly styled his pro se motion, a fair reading of his filing indicates that he is seeking the type of relief spelled out in Fed.R.Civ.P. 60. We therefore direct the district court to treat Cadet’s “Response to the Memorandum Order” as a motion to reconsider or a motion under Rule 60 for relief from the court’s dismissal and to dispose of the matter accordingly. Should the district court fail to dispose of the motion in a timely fashion, Cadet may renew his petition for writ of mandamus in this court.
Accordingly, although we grant Cadet leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny his petition for writ of mandamus without prejudice. 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.
PETITION DENIED.