Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of Texas

Martinez v. Johnson

Western District of TexasGuaderramaDecided May 15, 2015No. 3:14-cv-00216

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
Plaintiff, who is a Lawful Permanent Resident, filed an application for naturalization with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS” or “the agency”) on November 13, 2012.
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
Plaintiff, who is a Lawful Permanent Resident, filed an application for naturalization with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS” or “the agency”) on November 13, 2012.
What the suit asked for Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model
Plaintiff filed his Complaint on June 10, 2014, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), “to compel the Defendants to adjudicate the application by Plaintiff for naturalization.”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
Motion decided Summary judgment Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to dismiss Plaintiffs complaint with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, converted by the Court into a motion for summary judgment, is therefore denied.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to dismiss Plaintiffs complaint with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, converted by the Court into a motion for summary judgment, is therefore denied.
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
Defendants’ Motion to dismiss Plaintiffs complaint with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, converted by the Court into a motion for summary judgment, is therefore denied.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to dismiss Plaintiffs complaint with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, converted by the Court into a motion for summary judgment, is therefore denied.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to dismiss Plaintiffs complaint with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, converted by the Court into a motion for summary judgment, is therefore denied.
Months pending 18.9 months from the application to the suit; 30 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
Plaintiff, who is a Lawful Permanent Resident, filed an application for naturalization with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS” or “the agency”) on November 13, 2012.
Months since the naturalization interview 7.4 months from the interview (2013-11-05) Read by a model
USCIS conducted Plaintiffs naturalization interview on November 5, 2013.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Mootness argument rejected Read by a model
Because the agency did not have jurisdiction over Plaintiffs application on June 19, 2014, its denial of that application is void and Plaintiffs § 1447(b) action is not moot.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:14-cv-00216
Filed
June 10, 2014
Ended
March 19, 2019
Suit's filing to its end
1,743 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 Fifth 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.