Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Massachusetts

Thakkar v. United States

District of MassachusettsM. Page KelleyDecided May 6, 2019No. 1:18-cv-11323

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 the Northern District of California explained in Gampala, USCIS would be compelled to adjudicate Plaintiff’s naturalization application, regardless of whether he prevailed as a single plaintiff in the present case or as a class member in Nio.
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
Plaintiff submitted his N-400 Naturalization Application pursuant to USCIS’ general practice in September 2016.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
As the Northern District of California explained in Gampala, USCIS would be compelled to adjudicate Plaintiff’s naturalization application, regardless of whether he prevailed as a single plaintiff in the present case or as a class member in Nio.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons stated below, the Court grants in part and denies in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss the case without prejudice, and grants in part and denies in part a stay of the case pending the resolution of Nio.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim, seeking monetary damages and promotion in the Army, in addition to “specific enforcement,” is also not encompassed by the Nio class action. However, it will be dismissed pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) for the reasons discussed infra.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
On September 7, 2018, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss or, In the Alternative, Stay the Case (#14)
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
For the reasons stated, the Court grants in part and denies in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss the case without prejudice, and grants in part and denies in part a stay of the case pending the resolution of Nio.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
For the reasons stated, the Court grants in part and denies in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss the case without prejudice, and grants in part and denies in part a stay of the case pending the resolution of Nio.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
For the reasons stated, the Court grants in part and denies in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss the case without prejudice, and grants in part and denies in part a stay of the case pending the resolution of Nio.
The other claims Some dismissed, some go on Read by a model
Plaintiff’s claims related to the renunciation of his Indian citizenship are permitted to proceed. Plaintiff’s claim for breach of contract (Count V) is DISMISSED without prejudice.
Months pending 21.3 months from the application to the suit; 31.6 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiff submitted his N-400 Naturalization Application pursuant to USCIS’ general practice in September 2016.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality India Read by a model
Plaintiff is a citizen of India, and currently resides in Medford, Massachusetts.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:18-cv-11323
Filed
June 25, 2018
Ended
July 30, 2019
Suit's filing to its end
400 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
idb disp 13 (dismissed: settled)

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 First 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.