Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Stone v. United States Department of State ca/ocs/ci

District of ColumbiaRudolph ContrerasDecided September 28, 2022No. 1:21-cv-03244

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 Department of State Read by a model
Plaintiff Jack Stone, proceeding pro se , claims that the United States Embassy in Tokyo and the Department of State (collectively, “Defendants”) have unlawfully refused to issue citizenship and immigration documents that he requested for his two putative children and wife.
Form or filing None named Read by a model
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
Plaintiff’s complaint seeks an order compelling Defendants to : (1)issue passports for the two children,
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
DENYING IN PART AND GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
A. Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS PREDATING FINAL AGENCY ACTION AND FILING OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD; DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT; DENYING IN PART AND GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
Disposition Dismissed in part; some claims go on The government's motion to dismiss was granted in part: some claims were dismissed and others go on. Read by a model
Accordingly, this Court will grant Defendants’motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s request for APA review of Defendants’ alleged delay in acting on his wife’s visa application.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
Accordingly, this Court will grant Defendants’motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s request for APA review of Defendants’ alleged delay in acting on his wife’s visa application.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Accordingly, this Court will grant Defendants’motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s request for APA review of Defendants’ alleged delay in acting on his wife’s visa application.
The other claims Some dismissed, some go on Read by a model
DENIES Plaintiff’s motions for leave to amend the complaint; and GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Complaint a nd Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motions (ECF No. 14)
Months pending 8.5 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Despite filing this complaint in December 2021, Plaintiff did not in fact execute the applications at issue in the instant matter, necessary for requesting a passport for M.S. and for a passport and CRBA for S.S., until January 13, 2022.
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. 1:21-cv-03244
Filed
December 6, 2021
Ended
February 25, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
1,542 days
How it ended
Ended, outcome not recorded
From the record
terminated; no disposition recorded

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 D.C. 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.