Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Massachusetts

Litvin v. Chertoff

District of MassachusettsTauroDecided November 19, 2008No. 1:08-cv-10172

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
On April 13, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Form N-400 application for naturalization with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS").
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
On April 13, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Form N-400 application for naturalization with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS").
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
On February 4, 2008, Plaintiff filed a mandamus action to compel various individuals and entities responsible for the adjudication of his naturalization application to proceed with the name check and otherwise adjudicate the application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Presently at issue is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [# 5]. For the following reasons, Defendants' Motion is DENIED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants bring this Motion pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and (6) on the grounds that this court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the action and that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Presently at issue is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [# 5].
Disposition Denied in the applicant's favor The principal motion was denied in full: a motion to dismiss denied so the case goes on, or relief denied on the merits. Read by a model
Accordingly, Defendants' Motion is DENIED.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
Accordingly, Defendants' Motion is DENIED.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
Plaintiff has demonstrated that he could prove some set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief. Accordingly, Defendants' Motion is DENIED.
The other claims Not decided here Read by a model
Because Parties' briefs do not address the Fifth Amendment and subject matter jurisdiction is satisfied under the APA and the mandamus act, this court does not address the Fifth Amendment here.
Months pending 21.7 months from the application to the suit; 31.2 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On April 13, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Form N-400 application for naturalization with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS").
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. 1:08-cv-10172
Filed
February 4, 2008
Ended
December 4, 2008
Suit's filing to its end
304 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
idb disp 13 (dismissed: settled)

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

Supreme Court and First 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.