Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of Texas

Mathenge v. Department of Homeland Security

Western District of TexasXavier RodriguezDecided December 17, 2019No. 5:18-cv-00788

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
Plaintiff alleged that the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS” or “Defendant”) delayed his application and accordingly brought suit for violation of due process, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act.
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
Plaintiff waited a year and reapplied for naturalization in July 2017.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
adjudicate his application “on or before thirty (30) days from the filing of this Complaint, or within such a reasonable period [of] time as is determined by this Court.”
Kind of order An order on fees Read by a model
ORDER ON MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES UNDER THE EAJA
Motion decided Fees under EAJA Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to the EAJA (docket no. 36) is DENIED.
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
On this date, the Court considered Plaintiff’s Motion for Costs and Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to the Equal Justice to Access Act (“EAJA”) (docket no. 36)
Disposition Attorney's fees An order on attorney's fees or costs after the case, counted for the side that won the fee motion. Read by a model
ORDER ON MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES UNDER THE EAJA
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
ORDER ON MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES UNDER THE EAJA
The delay claim Not decided here Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to the EAJA (docket no. 36) is DENIED.
The other claims Not decided here Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to the EAJA (docket no. 36) is DENIED.
Months pending 24.6 months from the application to the agency's action Read by a model
On August 7, 2019, Defendant filed an advisory to this Court, indicating that Defendant conducted its interview of Plaintiff on August 2 and immediately thereafter conducted an oath ceremony and naturalized Plaintiff.
Months since the naturalization interview 0 months from the interview (2019-08-02) Read by a model
On August 7, 2019, Defendant filed an advisory to this Court, indicating that Defendant conducted its interview of Plaintiff on August 2 and immediately thereafter conducted an oath ceremony and naturalized Plaintiff.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Kenya Read by a model
Peter Mathenge (“Plaintiff”), formerly a Kenyan citizen and now a naturalized American serving in the U.S. Army

How the case ended

Docket
No. 5:18-cv-00788
Filed
August 1, 2018
Ended
August 28, 2019
Suit's filing to its end
392 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. Other suits in this court.

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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.