Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of New York

Gittens v. Barr

Eastern District of New YorkBrian M. CoganDecided April 6, 2020No. 1:20-cv-00276

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,914 written decisions from 2,661 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 1:24 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 1,606 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,371 (85%), measured November 3, 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 USCIS Read by a model
In the third case, the petition alleged that the court had jurisdiction to grant petitioner relief under the APA and compel USCIS to review his N-400 application on its merits.
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
the Court cannot compel respondents to reopen and adjudicate petitioner’s N-400 application
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
He requests that the Court compel respondents to reopen and adjudicate nunc pro tunc his naturalization application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Petitioner’s petition for a writ of mandamus and relief under the APA is denied. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment dismissing the petition.
Motion decided None Read by a model
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
Petitioner pro se filed this instant action seeking mandamus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361 and the Administrative Procedure Act, (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment dismissing the petition.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment dismissing the petition.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Because petitioner mounts an indirect challenge to his removal order, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to grant him relief. The petition is therefore denied.
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
Nationality Barbados Read by a model
A citizen of Barbados, petitioner was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 1984.

Other orders in this case

The group holds 2 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision, this one. How decisions are grouped into cases.

DecisionDecidedJudgeDisposition
Gittens v. Barr February 12, 2020 Brian M. Cogan Dismissed
Gittens v. BarrThis decisionThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted April 6, 2020 Brian M. Cogan Dismissed

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:20-cv-00276
Filed
January 15, 2020
Ended
February 13, 2020
Suit's filing to its end
29 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 17 (judgment: other), judgment for defendant

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

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 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.