Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Massachusetts

Langa v. McDonald

District of MassachusettsPatti B. SarisDecided November 8, 2021

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 Not recorded Read by a model
Form or filing None named Read by a model
What the suit asked for Not recorded Read by a model
Kind of order An order on fees Read by a model
After a review of the submissions, the Court awards fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A).
Motion decided Fees under EAJA Read by a model
After a review of the submissions, the Court awards fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A).
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
Because plaintiff failed to keep contemporaneous records, the Court has considered the approximations provided but has adjusted the hourly figures to align with the Court’s understanding of a reasonable amount of time for the respective tasks.
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
After a review of the submissions, the Court awards fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A).
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
After a review of the submissions, the Court awards fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A).
The delay claim Not decided here Read by a model
After a review of the submissions, the Court awards fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A).
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
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

This decision is not linked to a docket in the docket record yet, so how the case ended is not shown.

Supreme Court and First 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.