Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California

Allen v. Garland

Northern District of CaliforniaJoseph C. SperoDecided March 10, 2023No. 3:21-cv-09941

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
Pro se Plaintiff Nelly Allen filed this action for writ of mandamus to compel United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) to adjudicate her pending Form N-400 naturalization applications.
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
to adjudicate her pending Form N-400 naturalization applications.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Pro se Plaintiff Nelly Allen filed this action for writ of mandamus to compel United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) to adjudicate her pending Form N-400 naturalization applications.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Based upon the foregoing, Defendants’ motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) is GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
Based upon the foregoing, Defendants’ motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) is GRANTED.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants filed an amended motion to dismiss on January 23, 2023, raising arguments similar to their original motion.
Disposition Dismissed as moot Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted. Read by a model
Therefore, her case became moot and “must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.”
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
Therefore, her case became moot and “must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.”
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the case is moot because USCIS has now adjudicated Plaintiff’s pending N-400 applications. The Court agrees.
Months pending 57 months from the application to the suit; 67.8 months from the application to the agency's action Read by a model
On November 9, 2022, USCIS denied Plaintiff’s two pending applications.
Months since the naturalization interview 5.3 months from the interview (2022-06-01) Read by a model
On June 1, 2022, USCIS interviewed Plaintiff regarding her two pending naturalization applications.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
Thus, Plaintiff received what her complaint requested when USCIS made its decision, and she no longer suffers the injury she complained of. Therefore, her case became moot and “must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.”

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:21-cv-09941
Filed
December 21, 2021
Ended
March 13, 2023
Suit's filing to its end
447 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
idb disp 3 (dismissed: lack of jurisdiction)

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.