Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of New York

Gittens v. Holder

Eastern District of New YorkCarol Bagley AmonDecided October 20, 2015

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 Department of Justice Read by a model
He seeks mandamus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361 and requests that this Court compel the Attorney General to reopen and adjudicate nunc pro tune his previously filed naturalization application.
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
He seeks mandamus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361 and requests that this Court compel the Attorney General to reopen and adjudicate nunc pro tune his previously filed naturalization application.
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
He seeks mandamus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361 and requests that this Court compel the Attorney General to reopen and adjudicate nunc pro tune his previously filed naturalization application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons discussed below, however, the complaint is dismissed.
Motion decided None Read by a model
Whose motion The court on its own Read by a model
For the reasons discussed below, however, the complaint is dismissed.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the reasons discussed below, however, the complaint is dismissed.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons discussed below, however, the complaint is dismissed.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
The fact that the instant request is styled as a mandamus petition does not cure this jurisdictional defect.
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

How the case ended

This decision is not linked to a docket in the docket record yet, so how the case ended is not shown.

Supreme Court and Second 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.