Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Maryland

Martynenko v. Hussey

District of MarylandLydia Kay GriggsbyDecided June 16, 2025No. 8:24-cv-02218

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
And so, to date, the USCIS has not processed the Plaintiff’s asylum application.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
On July 20, 2020, the Plaintiff submitted a Form I-589 application for asylum and withholding from removal to the San Francisco, California USCIS office.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
And so, the Plaintiff requests that the Court deny the Defendants’ motion to dismiss and compel the Defendants to adjudicate his asylum application without further delay.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
And so, the Court: (1) GRANTS the Defendants’ motion to dismiss, or, in the alternative, for summary judgment (ECF No. 13) and (2) DISMISSES the complaint.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
The Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint, or, in the alternative, for summary judgment, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6) and 56.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
The Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint, or, in the alternative, for summary judgment, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6) and 56.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
And so, the Court: (1) GRANTS the Defendants’ motion to dismiss, or, in the alternative, for summary judgment (ECF No. 13) and (2) DISMISSES the complaint.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
And so, the Court: (1) GRANTS the Defendants’ motion to dismiss, or, in the alternative, for summary judgment (ECF No. 13) and (2) DISMISSES the complaint.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
And so, the Court: (1) GRANTS the Defendants’ motion to dismiss, or, in the alternative, for summary judgment (ECF No. 13) and (2) DISMISSES the complaint.
Months pending 48.4 months from the application to the suit; 58.9 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On July 20, 2020, the Plaintiff submitted a Form I-589 application for asylum and withholding from removal to the San Francisco, California USCIS office.
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. 8:24-cv-02218
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 19)
Filed
July 30, 2024
Ended
June 16, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
321 days
How it ended
Dismissed, ground not recorded
From the record
idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why. Other suits in this court.

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

Supreme Court and Fourth 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.