Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Maryland

Dilone v. Nielsen

District of MarylandGrimmDecided February 1, 2019No. 8:18-cv-01018

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
It further asserted that the Court had jurisdiction over the naturalization proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1447 (b) because USCIS had failed to render a decision within 120 days of Mr. Dilone's examination.
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
The Complaint, which named Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen and other federal officials as defendants, 1 framed the suit as a mandamus action under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 to compel federal officers to uphold their duty to adjudicate his Form N-400 application for naturalization.
What the suit asked for Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model
His suit urges this Court to exercise its authority under 8 U.S.C. § 1447 (b), either by adjudicating the application itself or by ordering DHS to approve it.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
I conclude that this Court has jurisdiction over Mr. Dilone's Complaint and has the authority to grant the relief he seeks.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants seek a dismissal under either Rule 12(b)(1) or 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants seek a dismissal under either Rule 12(b)(1) or 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Disposition Government's motion denied; the case goes on The government's motion (to dismiss, or for summary judgment) was denied, so the case goes on. Counted as the applicant's ruling; a later decision in the case can still go either way. Read by a model
I have concluded that this Court retains jurisdiction over Mr. Dilone's Complaint under § 1447(b) and is authorized to order relief under the statute.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
I have concluded that this Court retains jurisdiction over Mr. Dilone's Complaint under § 1447(b) and is authorized to order relief under the statute.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
It is for this reason, primarily, that I have concluded that § 1429 does not preclude Mr. Dilone's claim for relief here.
Months pending 15.8 months from the application to the suit; 25.6 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
He applied for naturalization in December 2016.
Months since the naturalization interview 20.5 months from the interview (2017-05-17) Read by a model
USCIS agents interviewed him on May 17, 2017, at the agency's district field office in Baltimore.
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

Docket
No. 8:18-cv-01018
Filed
April 9, 2018
Ended
August 27, 2019
Suit's filing to its end
505 days
How it ended
Dismissed, ground not recorded
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. Other suits in this court.

Supreme Court and Fourth 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.