Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Connecticut

Ceken v. Chertoff

District of ConnecticutWarren W. EgintonDecided February 12, 2008No. 3:06-cv-02051

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
that has been pending before the Vermont Services Center of the. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS") since April 7, 2003.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
Plaintiff now seeks a Writ of Mandamus to order defendants to adjudicate his and *214 his spouse's I-485 applications [2] or, in the alternative, for summary judgment.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiff now seeks a Writ of Mandamus to order defendants to adjudicate his and *214 his spouse's I-485 applications [2] or, in the alternative, for summary judgment.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's petition for writ of mandamus [Doc. # 8].
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim; Summary judgment Read by a model
Because the Court will deny defendants' motions to dismiss plaintiff's petition for a writ of mandamus and will grant plaintiff the relief he seeks, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is rendered moot.
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
Because the Court will deny defendants' motions to dismiss plaintiff's petition for a writ of mandamus and will grant plaintiff the relief he seeks, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is rendered moot.
Disposition Granted in the applicant's favor The principal motion was granted in full: summary judgment for either side, an injunction or TRO, a writ or order to act, fees. A motion to dismiss granted in full counts as Dismissed; a transfer is listed apart. Read by a model
The Court hereby orders defendants to adjudicate plaintiff's applications for status adjustment within 60 days of the date of this ruling or provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay within the same time frame.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
The Court hereby orders defendants to adjudicate plaintiff's applications for status adjustment within 60 days of the date of this ruling or provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay within the same time frame.
The delay claim Relief ordered Read by a model
The Court hereby orders defendants to adjudicate plaintiff's applications for status adjustment within 60 days of the date of this ruling or provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay within the same time frame.
Months pending 44.6 months from the application to the suit; 58.2 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On April 7; 2003, plaintiff submitted 485 applications on behalf of both himself and his wife pursuant to section 245 of the INA.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected Read by a model
Although section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) does not preclude this Court from exercising judicial review of plaintiff's claims, it is necessary that there be a positive basis for subject matter jurisdiction.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:06-cv-02051
Filed
December 26, 2006
Ended
June 20, 2008
Suit's filing to its end
542 days
How it ended
Dismissed, ground not recorded
From the record
idb disp 2 (dismissed: want of prosecution)

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why.

Supreme Court and Second 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.