Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Clarke v. Holder

District of ColumbiaJohn D. BatesDecided March 23, 2011

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 Justice Read by a model
They argue that, under Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 105 S.Ct. 1649, 84 L.Ed.2d 714 (1985), and its progeny, investigations and prosecutions like that sought by petitioners are presumptively at the discretion of the Department of Justice and hence cannot be compelled through mandamus.
Form or filing None named Read by a model
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
Soon thereafter, they filed this action seeking a writ of mandamus directing the United States Attorney to institute a § 1451(a) revocation proceeding and cancel Maharaj's certificate of naturalization.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, respondents' motion to dismiss will be granted.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Respondents have moved to dismiss this action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), on the grounds that petitioners lack standing to bring this action and that, in any event, they have failed to meet the threshold requirements for relief in the nature of mandamus.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Respondents have moved to dismiss this action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6)
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, respondents' motion to dismiss will be granted.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, respondents' motion to dismiss will be granted.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, respondents' motion to dismiss will be granted.
Months pending 24 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
on March 23, 2009, they submitted a formal request to the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia to institute proceedings to revoke the U.S. citizenship of Balram Maharaj
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

This decision is not linked to a docket in the docket record yet, so how the case ended is not shown.

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.