Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of Washington

Lozano Rodriguez v. Jaddou

Western District of WashingtonRichard A. JonesDecided January 18, 2023No. 2:22-cv-01090

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 November 10, 2022, USCIS denied Plaintiff’s N-400 application for naturalization in a written decision, and a copy of the decision was e-mailed to Plaintiff’s counsel on that same date.
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
On November 10, 2022, USCIS denied Plaintiff’s N-400 application for naturalization in a written decision, and a copy of the decision was e-mailed to Plaintiff’s counsel on that same date.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
In this case, Plaintiff sought an order to compel USCIS to adjudicate his naturalization application within 30 days.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Based on the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss the complaint as moot.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss the complaint as moot.
Disposition Dismissed as moot Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted. Read by a model
Similarly, Plaintiff’s request for mandamus action is subject to mootness.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
Similarly, Plaintiff’s request for mandamus action is subject to mootness.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
Similarly, Plaintiff’s request for mandamus action is subject to mootness.
The other claims Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
Plaintiff’s claim that USCIS’s “acts and omissions”— misplacing Plaintiff’s application and delaying his interview— violate the INA, APA, and Fifth Amendment likewise “no longer presents an opportunity for this court to grant meaningful relief.”
Months pending Not stated at filing The agency acted before this decision, so the months up to the decision are not a delay and are not shown. Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
Similarly, Plaintiff’s request for mandamus action is subject to mootness.
Nationality Mexico Read by a model
Plaintiff is a citizen of Mexico

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:22-cv-01090
Filed
August 4, 2022
Ended
January 19, 2023
Suit's filing to its end
168 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
order 2023-01-18 dismisses for want of jurisdiction; 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.

Supreme Court and Ninth 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.