Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Schnitzler v. United States of America

District of ColumbiaReggie B. WaltonDecided May 25, 2012

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 USCIS has represented that the plaintiff will not be prejudiced by its decision to hold his application in abeyance until he is able to comply with § 1481(a)(6).
Form or filing None named Read by a model
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
To the extent that defendant Homeland Security had a ministerial duty to act on the plaintiff’s application to renounce his citizenship, which is also the relief the plaintiff seeks from the complaint, it has done so.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant the defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack 5 of jurisdiction.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
The defendants move to dismiss this case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
The defendants move to dismiss this case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Therefore, the Court will grant the defendants’ motion to dismiss the claim for mandamus relief as moot.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Therefore, the Court will grant the defendants’ motion to dismiss the claim for mandamus relief as moot.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
Therefore, the Court will grant the defendants’ motion to dismiss the claim for mandamus relief as moot.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
the Court finds that the plaintiff lacks standing to bring his constitutional claim for declaratory relief and, thus, will dismiss the complaint in its entirety.
Months pending Not stated at filing The agency acted before this decision, so the months up to the decision are not a delay and are not shown. Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
Therefore, the Court will grant the defendants’ motion to dismiss the claim for mandamus relief as moot.
Nationality United States Read by a model
The fact still remains that I am still considered a United States citizen.

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 D.C. 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.