Mandamus decisions / Western District of Pennsylvania
Eichhorst v. Lindsey
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 | Not recorded Read by a model |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
N-400 (naturalization)
Read by a model
On September 30, 1913, he appeared in the office of the clerk of this court and sought leave to file his petition for naturalization. |
| What the suit asked for |
Some other action
Read by a model
The clerk refused to permit such petition to be filed |
| Kind of order |
A ruling on a motion or the petition
Read by a model
The petitioner in these proceedings may present his petition for naturalization. |
| Motion decided | None Read by a model |
| Whose motion |
The plaintiff's motion
Read by a model
The petition for mandamus and the answer of the clerk setting up *709 the foregoing facts raise but a single question: Is the act of June 29, 1906, retroactive? |
| Disposition |
Granted in the applicant's favor
The principal motion was granted in full: summary judgment for either side, an injunction or TRO, a writ or order to act, fees. A motion to dismiss granted in full counts as Dismissed; a transfer is listed apart.
Read by a model
The petitioner in these proceedings may present his petition for naturalization. |
| Prevailing party |
Applicant
Read by a model
The petitioner in these proceedings may present his petition for naturalization. |
| The other claims |
Relief ordered
Read by a model
The petitioner in these proceedings may present his petition for naturalization. |
| 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 |
How the case ended
This decision is not linked to a docket in the docket record yet, so how the case ended is not shown.
Supreme Court and Third 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.
-
Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55
Supreme Court, June 14, 2004. Section 706(1) and mandamus reach only a discrete agency action that the agency is legally required to take, so a court cannot compel programmatic improvements or action the law leaves to agency discretion.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Gonzalez v. Secretary of Department of Homeland Security, 678 F.3d 254
Third Circuit, March 19, 2012. Section 1429 bars a court from ordering naturalization while removal proceedings are pending, but the district court keeps jurisdiction to review a denial under § 1421(c) and may grant declaratory relief.
ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Rejected in the Sixth Circuit by Joseph Ebu v. USCIS, 134 F.4th 895 (2025).
-
Duran-Pichardo v. Attorney General, 695 F.3d 282
Third Circuit, August 31, 2012. The remedy for USCIS's failure to decide within 120 days of the examination is a § 1447(b) hearing, an applicant who never took the oath is not a citizen, and § 1429 gives removal priority over naturalization.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 2 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-10-30; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.
-
Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers Union v. OSHA, 145 F.3d 120
Third Circuit, March 16, 1998. The Third Circuit weighs the TRAC factors in deciding whether to compel agency action that has been unreasonably delayed.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read the one published decision citing this case, as of 2026-11-03; it does not treat the case adversely. That describes that decision; it is not a determination that the case is good law.
-
Geda v. Director, USCIS, 126 F.4th 835
Third Circuit, January 23, 2025. Section 1255(a) commits both the adjustment decision and the process and pace for reaching it to the Secretary's discretion, so § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) strips district courts of jurisdiction over challenges to USCIS's adjudication hold policy and § 1252(a)(2)(D) does not restore it.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance