Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Minnesota

Adesida v. Tritten

District of MinnesotaDavid S. DotyDecided April 26, 2021No. 0:20-cv-01593

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
USCIS has not yet issued a final decision as to his application.
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
On or about February 14, 2018, Adesida filed an N-400, Application for Naturalization under 8 U.S.C. § 1427.
What the suit asked for Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model
He specifically alleges that USCIS has violated 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) and 8 C.F.R. § 335.3(a), because his interview was more than 120 days ago, and USCIS has failed to act as required.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Because § 1429 is not a jurisdictional statute that divests the court of its subject matter jurisdiction under § 1447(b), the court has subject matter jurisdiction over Adesida’s petition.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
This matter is before the court upon the motion to dismiss or stay the case by defendants Leslie Tritten and Ken Cuccinelli.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
This matter is before the court upon the motion to dismiss or stay the case by defendants Leslie Tritten and Ken Cuccinelli.
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
The court retains its subject matter jurisdiction over this matter, and it will address Adesida’s § 1447(b) claims after the conclusion of his removal proceedings.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
The court retains its subject matter jurisdiction over this matter, and it will address Adesida’s § 1447(b) claims after the conclusion of his removal proceedings.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
The court retains its subject matter jurisdiction over this matter, and it will address Adesida’s § 1447(b) claims after the conclusion of his removal proceedings.
Months pending 29 months from the application to the suit; 38.3 months from the application to the court's decision A section 1447(b) suit: these months run from the naturalization application. The statute's 120 days run from the interview, which they do not measure. Read by a model
On or about February 14, 2018, Adesida filed an N-400, Application for Naturalization under 8 U.S.C. § 1427.
Months since the naturalization interview 26.7 months from the interview (2019-02-04) Read by a model
Adesida passed his naturalization exams and other requirements and, on or about February 4, 2019, USCIS interviewed him.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Nigeria Read by a model
Adesida is a citizen of Nigeria

How the case ended

Docket
No. 0:20-cv-01593
Filed
July 17, 2020
Ended
December 2, 2021
Suit's filing to its end
503 days
How it ended
Transferred
From the record
idb disp 0 (transferred to another district)

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 Eighth 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.