Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of Wisconsin

Sutton v. Napolitano

Western District of WisconsinWilliam M. ConleyDecided November 15, 2013No. 3:13-cv-00173

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 USCIS Read by a model
Here, Sutton seeks an order from this court compelling USCIS to respond to the BIA’s Remand Order and adjudicate his 1-130 petition.
Form or filing I-130 (relative petition) Read by a model
In September 2007, Christopher filed a 1-130 Petition for Alien Relative with USCIS
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
In actuality, Sutton is asking the court to compel a decision — any decision — on the 1-130 petition, which presents an entirely different claim.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
The court will grant the last of these motions in part and dismiss Sutton’s constitutional claims, because those claims are not ripe, but will deny that same motion with respect to Sutton’s claims under the APA and the MVA.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
Defendants have filed various motions under Rule 12(b)(1) to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants have filed various motions under Rule 12(b)(1) to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
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
but will deny that same motion with respect to Sutton’s claims under the APA and the MVA.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
but will deny that same motion with respect to Sutton’s claims under the APA and the MVA.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
but will deny that same motion with respect to Sutton’s claims under the APA and the MVA.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Thus, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs constitutional claims and will dismiss them without prejudice.
Months pending 74 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
In September 2007, Christopher filed a 1-130 Petition for Alien Relative with USCIS
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings APA adequate-remedy bar rejected Read by a model
given that it is still unclear whether Sutton does, in fact, have a remedy under the APA, the court finds that it has subject matter jurisdiction in this case.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Plaintiff Christopher Sutton is a natural-born U.S. citizen residing in Madison, Wisconsin. He is married to Volha Sutton, who is not a U.S. citizen.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:13-cv-00173
Filed
March 11, 2013
Ended
December 3, 2013
Suit's filing to its end
267 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
idb disp 12 (dismissed: voluntarily)

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

Supreme Court and Seventh 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.