Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Michigan

Potris v. Secretary of Department of Homeland Security

Eastern District of MichiganBorman, PattiDecided December 18, 2015No. 2:15-cv-11309

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
The following day, on June 16, 2015, Plaintiffs naturalization application was approved by the USCIS.
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
On or about November 6, 2012, she filed a U.S. Citizenship Application (Form N-400) with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS).
What the suit asked for Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model
assume jurisdiction over this case and naturalize the Plaintiff pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b)
Kind of order An order on fees Read by a model
DENIES Plaintiffs Application for Attorney’s Fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (ECF No. 9).
Motion decided Fees under EAJA Read by a model
Currently before the Court is Plaintiffs July 13, 2015 application for fees, costs, *538 and other expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA).
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
DENIES Plaintiffs Application for Attorney’s Fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (ECF No. 9).
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
DENIES Plaintiffs Application for Attorney’s Fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (ECF No. 9).
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
DENIES Plaintiffs Application for Attorney’s Fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (ECF No. 9).
The delay claim Not decided here Read by a model
Currently before the Court is Plaintiffs July 13, 2015 application for fees, costs, *538 and other expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA).
Months pending 29 months from the application to the suit; 31.3 months from the application to the agency's action 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
The following day, on June 16, 2015, Plaintiffs naturalization application was approved by the USCIS.
Months since the naturalization interview 27.5 months from the interview (2013-02-28) Read by a model
Ms. Potris was interviewed on February 28, 2013 by the USCIS, Detroit District Office.
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

Docket
No. 2:15-cv-11309
Filed
April 8, 2015
Ended
June 15, 2015
Suit's filing to its end
68 days
How it ended
Remanded to the agency
From the record
idb disp 11 (remanded to U.S. agency)

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 Sixth 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.