Passim

Mandamus decisions / Middle District of Florida

Canton v. Attorney General, United States of America

Middle District of FloridaDecided August 6, 2024No. 6:23-cv-01190

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 USCIS Read by a model
After an administrative appeal, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) denied Canton’s Form N-400, Application for Naturalization.
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
After an administrative appeal, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) denied Canton’s Form N-400, Application for Naturalization.
What the suit asked for Not recorded Read by a model
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Upon consideration, the Motion is due to be granted in part and denied in part.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 39) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
This cause comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (the “Motion”), filed September 29, 2023.
Disposition Dismissed in part; some claims go on The government's motion to dismiss was granted in part: some claims were dismissed and others go on. Read by a model
For these reasons, Plaintiff has failed to establish that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus. Accordingly, Count I is due to be dismissed.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
For these reasons, Plaintiff has failed to establish that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus. Accordingly, Count I is due to be dismissed.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For these reasons, Plaintiff has failed to establish that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus. Accordingly, Count I is due to be dismissed.
The other claims Some dismissed, some go on Read by a model
1. Counts I and II are DISMISSED. 2. Plaintiff shall have through August 20, 2024, to file an amended complaint as to Count III only.
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 New Zealand Read by a model
Since Plaintiff was born August 5, 1971, he had birthright citizenship in New Zealand.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 6:23-cv-01190
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 45), deciding the motion (ECF 39)
Filed
June 27, 2023
Ended
February 6, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
955 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), 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.

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision, and the motion number is read from that entry's text. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

Supreme Court and Eleventh 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.