Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Strunk v. U.S. Department of State

District of ColumbiaRichard J. LeonDecided March 16, 2010

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,917 written decisions from 2,664 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 7:07 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 Department of State Read by a model
With respect to the request for the late Ms. Dunham's passport applications, the State Department notified plaintiff that it would process the request, to which it assigned case processing number 200807238.
Form or filing None named Read by a model
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
In this action, plaintiff demands the release of records maintained by federal government agencies, and an adequate remedy for a request of this nature exists pursuant to the FOIA.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
This matter is before the Court on defendants' partial motion to dismiss, and the Court will grant the motion for the reasons discussed below.
Motion decided Other motion to dismiss Read by a model
This matter is before the Court on defendants' partial motion to dismiss, and the Court will grant the motion for the reasons discussed below.
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
In opposition to defendants' motion for partial dismissal, plaintiff filed a "Notice of Cross Motion of Quo Warranto Demand for Jury Trial and Decision on Question of First Impression
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
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
The other claims Some dismissed, some go on Read by a model
The Court will grant defendant's partial motion to dismiss, and will direct the parties to submit a joint proposed schedule to govern future proceedings in this action.
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
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 D.C. 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.