Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of California

Avazian v. Beers

Eastern District of CaliforniaDecided January 4, 2021No. 2:13-cv-02589

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,996 written decisions from 2,731 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided November 12, 2026. Updated November 14, 2026 at 1:17 a.m. CT; the Passim connector counts the live collection, which can differ by the day's additions and retirements (which total to quote). Coverage: of the 1,617 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,406 (87%), 1,039 of them in this group, measured November 14, 2026. Some of what that search finds are not mandamus decisions. Tell us about a decision we're missing.

These are counts of past written decisions and dockets, not predictions of how any case will be decided. A distribution appears only when at least 5 decisions (or 5 dockets) are behind it; smaller groups are listed, not summarized. How it's counted.

What the decision decided

Each value cites the passage it was read from. Values read by a model were checked against that passage; values read by rule come from fixed text patterns. Read the decision before relying on either.

Agency Not recorded Read by a model
Form or filing N-336 Read by a model
Plaintiff did not allege a certain result is compelled by law, nor does he request 28 any relief beyond the resolution of his N-336 application.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
requesting a writ of mandamus 25 | compelling adjudication of his request for a hearing on a decision in naturalization proceedings, 26 | otherwise referenced as an N-336.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
The motion is granted and the case is dismissed with prejudice.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
Defendants request this case be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1),
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants request this case be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1),
Disposition Dismissed as moot Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted. Read by a model
The April 28, 2014 1 determination the government has now provided is the relief he was requesting, and the only 2 relief available based on the complaint.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
The April 28, 2014 1 determination the government has now provided is the relief he was requesting, and the only 2 relief available based on the complaint.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
The April 28, 2014 1 determination the government has now provided is the relief he was requesting, and the only 2 relief available based on the complaint.
Months pending Not stated at filing The agency acted before this decision, so the months up to the decision are not a delay and are not shown. Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
The April 28, 2014 1 determination the government has now provided is the relief he was requesting, and the only 2 relief available based on the complaint.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:13-cv-02589
Filed
December 13, 2013
Ended
January 4, 2021
Suit's filing to its end
2,579 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why.

Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit authority

District decisions bind no one. On the questions this decision raises, the Supreme Court decisions and the circuit's published decisions listed here bind this court; a circuit disposition marked nonprecedential was not published as precedent and is persuasive only. ImmCite status as read November 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.