Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of Florida

Del Valle v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Southern District of FloridaJames Lawrence KingDecided September 24, 2018No. 1:18-cv-21230

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
The USCIS is required to adjudicate or schedule a second interview for an Application for N aturalization within 120 days of the first interview .
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
On Septem ber 1, 2016, Plaintiff filed an Application for N aturalization w ith the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ($iUSC1S'') under 8 U.S.C. j 1427 (DE # 1, ! 21).
What the suit asked for Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model
On April 2, 2018--448 days after his interview for naturalization- plaintiff had received no response from the USCIS, and filed his Complaint with the Court pursuant to 8 U.S.C. j 1447(b) (DE # 1, ! 36).
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendants' M otion to Dismiss (DE #21) is hereby DENIED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants move to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants' M otion to Dismiss (DE #21) is hereby DENIED.
Disposition Government's motion denied; the case goes on The government's motion (to dismiss, or for summary judgment) was denied, so the case goes on. Counted as the applicant's ruling; a later decision in the case can still go either way. Read by a model
Defendants' M otion to Dismiss (DE #21) is hereby DENIED.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
Defendants' M otion to Dismiss (DE #21) is hereby DENIED.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
As 8 U.S.C. j 1429 does not bar the Court from hearing this case, Plaintiffs Complaint should not be dism issed.
Months pending 19 months from the application to the suit; 24.7 months from the application to the court's decision 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
On Septem ber 1, 2016, Plaintiff filed an Application for N aturalization
Months since the naturalization interview 20.5 months from the interview (2017-01-09) Read by a model
He appeared for his naturalization interview and examination on January 9, 2017
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. 1:18-cv-21230
Filed
April 2, 2018
Ended
January 16, 2019
Suit's filing to its end
289 days
How it ended
Transferred
From the record
idb disp 0 (transferred to another district)

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 Eleventh 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.