Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of New Jersey

BAPTISTE v. ATTORNEY GENERAL, UNITED STATES

District of New JerseyKevin McNultyDecided September 27, 2019No. 2:18-cv-16826

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,914 written decisions from 2,661 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 1:24 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 USCIS Read by a model
From Panama, he is continuing to litigate this action, which seeks a seeking a writ of mandamus compelling the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (“USCIS”) to adjudicate (i.e., grant) his N-400 application for naturalization as a U.S. citizen.
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
On July 27, 2007, he submitted an N-400 application for naturalization.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
seeks a seeking a writ of mandamus compelling the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (“USCIS”) to adjudicate (i.e., grant) his N-400 application for naturalization as a U.S. citizen.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the motion of the United States (DE 14) to dismiss the Petition is GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Now before the Court is the motion (DE 14) of the United States to dismiss the complaint or petition for mandamus (“Pet.”, DE 1) for failure to state a claim, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
On March 25, 2019, the United States filed the motion to dismiss the Petition that is now before the Court.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the motion of the United States (DE 14) to dismiss the Petition is GRANTED.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the motion of the United States (DE 14) to dismiss the Petition is GRANTED.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the motion of the United States (DE 14) to dismiss the Petition is GRANTED.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the motion of the United States (DE 14) to dismiss the Petition is GRANTED.
Months pending 136.1 months from the application to the suit; 146 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On July 27, 2007, he submitted an N-400 application for naturalization.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Panama Read by a model
The petitioner, a native and citizen of Panama, was declared a lawful permanent resident in 2003.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:18-cv-16826
Filed
November 28, 2018
Ended
September 27, 2019
Suit's filing to its end
303 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.

Supreme Court and Third 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.