Passim

Mandamus decisions / Middle District of Florida

Martinez v. Secretary, Department of Homeland Security

Middle District of FloridaAntoonDecided November 12, 2009

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 March 7, 2007, Plaintiff Joel Martinez filed an application for naturalization with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”).
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
On March 7, 2007, Plaintiff Joel Martinez filed an application for naturalization with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”).
What the suit asked for Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model
Plaintiff filed his Complaint and requested a hearing before this court pursuant to § 1447(b)
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Accordingly, Defendants’ motion (Doc. 11) is DENIED insofar as it seeks dismissal on mootness grounds.
Motion decided Other motion to dismiss; Remand under 1447(b) Read by a model
As explained below, the motion must be denied insofar as it seeks dismissal, but the motion is granted insofar as it seeks remand.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants now seek dismissal of the Complaint on mootness grounds because USCIS denied Plaintiffs application on June 23, 2009. (Mot. to Dismiss, Doc. 11).
Disposition Remanded to the agency Sent back to the agency, with or without instructions. Read by a model
This matter is hereby REMANDED to USCIS with instructions to make a decision on Plaintiffs naturalization application within fifteen (15) days of entry of this Order.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
As explained below, the motion must be denied insofar as it seeks dismissal, but the motion is granted insofar as it seeks remand.
The delay claim Remanded to the agency Read by a model
This matter is hereby REMANDED to USCIS with instructions to make a decision on Plaintiffs naturalization application within fifteen (15) days of entry of this Order.
Months pending 26.2 months from the application to the suit; 32.2 months from the application to the court's decision 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 March 7, 2007, Plaintiff Joel Martinez filed an application for naturalization with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”).
Months since the naturalization interview 10.8 months from the interview (2008-07-30) Read by a model
As a part of the application process, USCIS conducted an oral examination of Plaintiff on July 30, 2008.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Mootness argument rejected Read by a model
Accordingly, Defendants’ motion (Doc. 11) is DENIED insofar as it seeks dismissal on mootness grounds.

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 Eleventh 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.