Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of Texas

Sawan v. Chertoff

Southern District of TexasLee Hyman RosenthalDecided November 18, 2008No. 4:08-cv-01550

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
Sawan alleges that the USCIS has a duty to adjudicate his naturalization application in a reasonable time.
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
Sawan filed this suit to compel action on his N-400 Application for Naturalization ("Form N-400"), which has been pending since November 2006.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Sawan filed this suit to compel action on his N-400 Application for Naturalization ("Form N-400"), which has been pending since November 2006.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons explained below, this court grants Sawan's motion for reconsideration in part, finding subject-matter jurisdiction.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Although some of Sawan's claims are dismissed for failure to state a cause of action, others withstand dismissal on this basis. Because the parties have submitted materials outside the pleadings, the motion to dismiss is converted to one for summary judgment.
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
Sawan moved for reconsideration, (Docket Entry No. 13), which the defendants opposed, (Docket Entry No. 14).
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
Although some of Sawan's claims are dismissed for failure to state a cause of action, others withstand dismissal on this basis.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
Although some of Sawan's claims are dismissed for failure to state a cause of action, others withstand dismissal on this basis.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
Although some of Sawan's claims are dismissed for failure to state a cause of action, others withstand dismissal on this basis.
The other claims Not decided here Read by a model
Sawan also argues that the court failed to consider his argument that the USCIS has no statutory or regulatory authority to require a name check as a condition to scheduling an interview.
Months pending 24.1 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
In November 2006, Sawan applied to become a naturalized citizen of the United States.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
The APA provides a remedy for unlawfully delayed agency action; mandamus is not necessary for relief.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 4:08-cv-01550
Filed
May 19, 2008
Ended
November 24, 2008
Suit's filing to its end
6 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
idb disp 12 (dismissed: voluntarily)

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