Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of California

Hassine v. Johnson

Eastern District of CaliforniaObertoDecided October 8, 2014No. 1:13-cv-01152

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
On February 3, 2011, Plaintiff, represented by counsel, submitted an application for naturalization to the USCIS pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1430.
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
On February 3, 2011, Plaintiff, represented by counsel, submitted an application for naturalization to the USCIS pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1430.
What the suit asked for Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model
Plaintiff initially *1300 requested that the Court conduct a hearing and adjudicate the naturalization application de novo, rather than remanding the matter to the USCIS.
Kind of order An order on fees Read by a model
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2412
Motion decided Fees under EAJA Read by a model
Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs motion for attorneys’ fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d).
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
On July 8, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for attorneys’ fees under the EAJA, which is now before the Court.
Disposition Attorney's fees An order on attorney's fees or costs after the case, counted for the side that won the fee motion. Read by a model
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2412
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2412
The delay claim Not decided here Read by a model
Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs motion for attorneys’ fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d).
Months pending 29.6 months from the application to the suit; 38.9 months from the application to the agency's action 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
On May 2, 2014, USCIS interviewed Plaintiff, approved his naturalization application, administered the oath of allegiance, and issued a certification of naturalization.
Months since the naturalization interview 31.1 months from the interview (2011-09-28) Read by a model
Next, Defendants acted unreasonably in failing to adjudicate the application within 120 days of the September 28, 2011, interview.
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

Docket
No. 1:13-cv-01152
Filed
July 24, 2013
Ended
April 15, 2014
Suit's filing to its end
265 days
How it ended
Dismissed, ground not recorded
From the record
idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why.

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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.