Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Louisiana

Duncan v. Arties

Eastern District of LouisianaGreg Gerard GuidryDecided September 2, 2025No. 2:24-cv-01309

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
Defendant USCIS is instructed to make a prompt determination on Plaintiff Luisa Duncan’s naturalization application.
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
Ms. Duncan filed an N-400 naturalization application with USCIS on December 14, 2018.
What the suit asked for Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model
Instead, Ms. Duncan filed the instant lawsuit pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), alleging, inter alia,3 a delay in USCIS’s adjudication of her naturalization application in excess of 120 days.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant Defendants’ Motion to Remand.
Motion decided Remand under 1447(b); Summary judgment Read by a model
Plaintiffs request the Court deny Defendant’s Motion to Remand and, instead, grant Ms. Duncan’s Motion for Summary Judgment (R. doc. 14).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
a Motion to Remand to United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) filed by Defendants Eureka Arties, Cambri McNair, and the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services.
Disposition Remanded to the agency Sent back to the agency, with or without instructions. Read by a model
The Court, having considered those cases and the parties’ arguments, will remand the case to USCIS for a prompt determination on Ms. Duncan’s naturalization application.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Remand to USCIS (R. Doc. 18) is GRANTED.
The delay claim Remanded to the agency Read by a model
The Court, having considered those cases and the parties’ arguments, will remand the case to USCIS for a prompt determination on Ms. Duncan’s naturalization application.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court will dismiss all remaining claims without prejudice.
Months pending 80.6 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
Ms. Duncan filed an N-400 naturalization application with USCIS on December 14, 2018.
Months since the naturalization interview 71.5 months from the interview (2019-09-18) Read by a model
On September 18, 2019, the USCIS New Orleans Field Office 1 Defendants’ brief notes that Defendants Arties and McNair no longer work in the New Orleans Field Office of USCIS. See R. Doc. 18-1, p. 4, n. 4. interviewed Ms. Duncan regarding her application.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Philippines Read by a model
Luisa Duncan, a native and citizen of the Philippines

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:24-cv-01309
Filed
May 20, 2024
Status
Pending as of the last docket check

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 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 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.