Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California
Reddy v. Mueller
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
As such, USCIS shall have until June 4, 2008 to adjudicate Reddy's application for naturalization. |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
N-400 (naturalization)
Read by a model
He applied for naturalization on February 27, 2006 |
| What the suit asked for |
Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b))
Read by a model
If USCIS fails to make a determination on an individual's application for naturalization within 120 days after the applicant is examined, that individual may apply to the United States District Court for a hearing on the matter. 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b). |
| Kind of order |
A ruling on a motion or the petition
Read by a model
As such, USCIS shall have until June 4, 2008 to adjudicate Reddy's application for naturalization. |
| Motion decided |
Remand under 1447(b)
Read by a model
Defendants now move to remand this matter back to USCIS with instructions to adjudicate the naturalization application promptly upon receipt of the FBI name check. |
| Whose motion |
The government's motion
Read by a model
Defendants now move to remand this matter back to USCIS with instructions to adjudicate the naturalization application promptly upon receipt of the FBI name check. |
| Disposition |
Remanded to the agency
Sent back to the agency, with or without instructions.
Read by a model
Accordingly, the motion to remand is GRANTED as to this aspect. |
| Prevailing party |
Applicant
Read by a model
As such, USCIS shall have until June 4, 2008 to adjudicate Reddy's application for naturalization. |
| The delay claim |
Remanded to the agency
Read by a model
Accordingly, the motion to remand is GRANTED as to this aspect. |
| Months pending |
17.1 months from the application to the suit; 24.3 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
He applied for naturalization on February 27, 2006 and was interviewed by the United States Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS) on July 11, 2006. |
| Months since the naturalization interview |
19.9 months from the interview (2006-07-11)
Read by a model
He applied for naturalization on February 27, 2006 and was interviewed by the United States Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS) on July 11, 2006. |
| 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 Ninth 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.
-
Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55
Supreme Court, June 14, 2004. Section 706(1) and mandamus reach only a discrete agency action that the agency is legally required to take, so a court cannot compel programmatic improvements or action the law leaves to agency discretion.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Yith v. Nielsen, 881 F.3d 1155
Ninth Circuit, February 7, 2018. The 'examination' that starts § 1447(b)'s 120-day clock is the interview, a notice to appear is not a warrant of arrest under § 1429, and USCIS fails to make a determination when it misses the deadline; the Sixth Circuit's Ebu disagrees in part.
ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Rejected in the Sixth Circuit by Joseph Ebu v. USCIS, 134 F.4th 895 (2025).
-
Independence Mining Co. v. Babbitt, 105 F.3d 502
Ninth Circuit, January 23, 1997. Mandamus and APA § 706(1) claims to compel delayed agency action are analyzed alike under the TRAC factors.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Vaz v. Neal, 33 F.4th 1131
Ninth Circuit, May 9, 2022. Section 706(1) compels only a clear, mandatory and discrete duty that has been unreasonably delayed under TRAC, and the APA's prerequisites go to the merits while § 1331 supplies jurisdiction.
ImmCite: unchecked, treatment not confirmed yet, not evidence either way. ImmCite has found no published decision citing this case as of 2026-11-10; it checks for new citing decisions daily. That is not a determination that the case is good law. The citation index lists 145 other decisions citing it, none a Supreme Court, BIA or Attorney General precedent or a published circuit opinion; ImmCite's status does not review them.