are reminded today that Justice Douglas’s words ring as true now as they did nearly half a century ago: “The bureaucracy of modern government ... is slow, lumbering, and oppressive.” Wyman v. James, 400 U.S. 309, 335, 91 S.Ct. 381, 27 L.Ed.2d 408 (1971) (Douglas, J., dissenting). 2 . It is worth mentioning that "exhaustion is not required when unreasonable administrative delay would render the administrative remedy inadequate.” Sw. Bell Tel. Co. v. FCC, 138 F.3d 746, 750 (8th Cir. 1998); see also Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U.S. 564, 575 n. 14, 93 S.Ct. 1689, 36 L.Ed.2d 488 (1973) (nothing that when administrative remedies are deemed inadequate it is “[m]ost often ,.. because of delay by the agency”); Smith v. Illinois Bell Tel. Co., 270 U.S. 587, 591-92, 46 S.Ct. 408, 70 L.Ed. 747 (1926) (<HOLDING>). Tribes languishing in the Part 83 process
recognizing for the first time that the habeas court had the power to retain the petitioner in conditional custody before granting relief holding a petitioner is not required indefinitely to await a decision of the ratemaldng tribunal before applying to a federal court for equitable relief holding that when applying state law a federal court is bound to follow the highest court in the state recognizing that an appellate court reviews a trial courts decision whether or not to grant equitable relief only for an abuse of discretion holding that under section 9543a1 a pcra petitioner is not eligible for relief where the petitioner has completed serving the sentence before final adjudication on the petition