Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Nebraska

Endicott v. INS "Perez"

District of NebraskaRichard G. KopfDecided September 30, 2019

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
However, the exhibits referenced in Plaintiff’s motion and judicially noticed by the court indicate that USCIS made a determination on his naturalization application in that Plaintiff’s application was denied for lack of prosecution.
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
The exhibits indicate Plaintiff submitted a N-400 Application for Naturalization at some time prior to February 14, 2005
What the suit asked for Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model
Plaintiff also appears to argue that this court can make a determination on his naturalization application under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) because more than 120 days have passed since Plaintiff completed the initial interview on August 8, 2005.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Plaintiff’s claims seeking relief pursuant to the FTCA are dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
Motion decided None Read by a model
Whose motion The court on its own Read by a model
The court now conducts an initial review of Plaintiff’s Complaint to determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A.
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
In light of the court’s determination that the Complaint fails to state a plausible claim for relief, Plaintiff’s motions will be denied.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
In light of the court’s determination that the Complaint fails to state a plausible claim for relief, Plaintiff’s motions will be denied.
The delay claim Relief denied Read by a model
In light of the court’s determination that the Complaint fails to state a plausible claim for relief, Plaintiff’s motions will be denied.
The other claims Some dismissed, some go on Read by a model
Plaintiff’s claims seeking relief pursuant to the FTCA are dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. 2. Plaintiff shall have until October 30, 2019, to file an amended complaint that states a plausible claim for relief against Defendants.
Months pending Not stated 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
Months since the naturalization interview 169.7 months from the interview (2005-08-08) Read by a model
he was interviewed by USCIS officer John S. Perez on August 8, 2005
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 Eighth 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.