The following are selected decisions since 2006. Please see the AILF Practice Advisory, "Mandamus Actions: Avoiding Dismissal and Proving the Case," for earlier cases including relevant circuit court decisions. Note that often, the filing of a mandamus action prompts the government to take whatever action is requested and the case is dismissed. As a result, in many successful cases, the court never issues a decision.
Favorable Decisions
District Courts
California
Liu v. Chertoff, No. 06-2808, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50173 (E.D. Cal. July 11, 2007). The court found subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs' mandamus action to compel adjudication of their Adjustment of Status Applications (Form I-485). The court ruled that the duty to adjudicate the applications was non-discretionary and absent a more particular explanation by defendants as to the cause of delay in processing plaintiffs' applications, defendants failed to demonstrate that a two-and-a-half year delay of adjudication was reasonable.
Okunev v. Chertoff, No. 07-00417, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53161 (N.D. Cal. July 11, 2007). The court found subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate plaintiff's Adjustment of Status Application (Form I-485). The court ruled that USCIS has a non-discretionary statutory duty to adjudicate plaintiff's application, and reasoning that if the court were to hold otherwise, USCIS could withhold a decision indefinitely. The court reasoned that there are too many important rights associated with permanent resident status to allow the rate at which these applications are processed to go entirely unchecked. Plaintiff's application was pending for over three years when the court issued its decision.
Quan v. Chertoff, 06-7881, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44081 (N.D. Cal. June 7, 2007). The court found mandamus jurisdiction to review Plaintiff's Adjustment of Status Application (Form I-485). The court found that the relevant statutes and regulations impose a non-discretionary duty on the agency to make a decision on the application, and that the decision must be made within a reasonable amount of time.
Singh v. Still, No. 06-2458, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16334 (N.D. Cal. 2007). The court found mandamus jurisdiction to order adjudication of plaintiff's Adjustment of Status Application (Form I-485). The court held that there was unreasonable delay in the adjudication of plaintiff's applications and that plaintiff had no other remedy. At the time the court issued its decision, plaintiff's asylum-based I-485 application had been pending for more than seven years and his marriage-based I-485 application had been pending for almost four years.
Aboushaban v. Mueller, No. 06-1280, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81076 (N.D. Cal. 2006). The court found jurisdiction over the mandamus action and ordered USCIS to complete adjudication of plaintiff's Adjustment of Status Application (Form I-485). Plaintiff's application had been pending for approximately eight years when the court issued its decision.
Razaq v. Poulos, No. 06-2461, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 770 (N.D. Cal. 2007). The court found jurisdiction over the mandamus action to compel adjudication of a Relative Petition (Form I-130), finding that the agency has a ministerial duty to process plaintiff's petition under 8 U.S.C. §1154(b). However, the court denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, finding that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the agency's inaction was "clearly unreasonable." The court similarly denied the government's cross motion for summary judgment, finding that the agency failed to demonstrate that its inaction was "reasonable." The court invited plaintiffs to file an amended motion for summary judgment if the government failed to resolve plaintiff's I-130 petition within 28 days of the court's order. Plaintiff's petition was pending for over two years at the time the court issued its decision.
Connecticut
Salehian v. Novak, No. 06-459, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77028, (D. Conn. 2006). The court found jurisdiction over the mandamus action and held that defendants must provide an explanation for the delay resulting from security checks or adjudicate plaintiffs' Adjustment of Status Applications (Form I-485). The court denied defendants' motion to dismiss and ordered plaintiffs to file a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs' applications had been pending for longer than two years when they filed their mandamus action.
Florida
Jones v. Gonzales, No. 07-20334, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45012 (S.D. Fla. June 21, 2007). The court found subject matter jurisdiction to remand plaintiffs' Adjustment of Status Applications (Form I-485) to USCIS to complete the security background investigations and for a "reasonably prompt" adjudication of plaintiffs' applications. At the time of the decision, one plaintiff's application had been pending for two years, and the other plaintiff's application had been pending for almost three years.
Cacace v. Swacina, No. 07-20410, Order on Mot. to Dismiss (S.D. Fla. May 17, 2007). The court found subject matter jurisdiction to determine whether USCIS had unreasonably delayed action on plaintiff's Adjustment of Status Application (Form I-485), holding that 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) only barred review of actual discretionary decisions to grant or deny relief. The court found that the agency had unreasonably delayed action on the application and provided no sufficient explanation for the delay. The plaintiff's application had been pending for approximately three years when the court issued its decision.
Tjin-A-Tam v. United States Dep't of Homeland Sec., No. 05-23339, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17994 (S.D. Fla. 2007). The court denied the government's motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment. The court found jurisdiction over the mandamus action to compel DHS to adjudicate plaintiff's Adjustment of Status Application (Form I-485). The plaintiff's application had been pending for longer than three years at the time the court issued its decision.
Illinois
Guangming Liu v. Chertoff, No. 06-3297, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29640 (C.D. Ill. April 23, 2007). The court found subject matter jurisdiction over the mandamus action to compel plaintiff's Adjustment of Status Application (Form I-485). The court found that the FBI and USCIS have a non-discretionary duty to process adjustment applications, and a refusal to adjudicate the application would be a "refusal to perform assigned duties." The court did find that the agency would have discretion to determine the time and manner in which the application is adjudicated, but would not have discretion to make no determination at all. The application had been pending for approximately three years when the court issued its decision.
Massachusetts
Tang v. Chertoff, No. 07-10231, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46030 (D. Mass. June 26, 2007). The court found jurisdiction to compel USCIS to adjudicate plaintiff's Adjustment of Status Application (Form I-485). The court held that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) did not bar jurisdiction because the bar only applies to decisions that are specified to be discretionary under the relevant subchapter. The plaintiff's application had been pending for approximately four years at the time the court issued its decision.
Minnesota
Haidari v. Frazier, No. 06-3215, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 (D. Minn. 2006). The court found jurisdiction over the mandamus action and ordered USCIS to complete its adjudication of plaintiffs' Adjustment of Status Applications (Form I-485) within 30 days and to inform the court of its decisions. The court stated that it would maintain jurisdiction over the case to ensure that USCIS complied with its order. At the time the three plaintiffs filed their mandamus suit, two applications had been pending for four years and one had been pending for six years.
Nebraska
Li v. Chertoff, No. 07-50, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53309 (D. Neb. June 19, 2007). The court found subject matter jurisdiction to review defendants' failure to adjudicate plaintiff's application. The court reasoned that the APA requires defendants to process the I-485 application within a reasonable time. This mandate is distinct from the discretionary authority of whether to grant or deny the applications. The court ordered defendants to adjudicate plaintiff's application within 30 days. Plaintiff's application had been pending for approximately two years when the court issued its decision.
New Jersey
Xu v. Chertoff, No. 07-366, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50027 (D.N.J. July 11, 2007). The court found jurisdiction over a mandamus action brought to compel USCIS to adjudicate plaintiffs' Adjustment of Status Application (Form I-485). The court found that the defendants had a non-discretionary duty to process or adjudicate the application and that defendants had not provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay. Plaintiffs' applications had been pending for over two years when they filed their complaint.
Pool v. Gonzales, No. 07-258, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39946 (D.N.J. June 1, 2007). The court found jurisdiction over a mandamus action brought to compel adjudication of plaintiff's Relative Petition (Form I-130) and Adjustment of Status Application (Form I-485). The court found that USCIS has a non-discretionary duty to act on applications within a reasonable time and that it must adjudicate the applications or provide an explanation for the delay.
New York
Am. Acad. of Religion v. Chertoff, 463 F. Supp. 2d 400 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). The court found jurisdiction to compel adjudication of plaintiff's nonimmigrant visa application and ordered the agency to issue a decision on the application within 90 days. The application had been pending for approximately four months when plaintiff filed this action.
Pennsylvania
Elhaouat v. Mueller, 07-632, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58906 (E.D. Pa. August 13, 2007). The court found jurisdiction over plaintiff's Application for Naturalization (Form N-400). The court held that even though the agency had not conducted a naturalization interview with the plaintiff, USCIS has a non-discretionary duty under the APA to process naturalization applications within a reasonable period of time. At the time of the court's decision, plaintiff's application had been pending for approximately three years.
Ajmal v. Mueller, No. 07-206, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52046 (E.D. Pa. July 17, 2007). The court found jurisdiction over a mandamus action brought to compel USCIS to adjudicate plaintiff's Application for Naturalization (Form N-400). At the time the plaintiff brought the mandamus action, USCIS had not yet conducted the naturalization interview. The court held that even in the absence of specific deadlines, USCIS has a non-discretionary duty to adjudicate applications for naturalization without unreasonable delay and the FBI has a mandatory, non-discretionary duty to complete background checks within a reasonable period of time. Plaintiff waited for over one year for USCIS to schedule a naturalization interview before filing his mandamus action.
Han Cao v. Upchurch, No. 07-1232, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51477 (E.D. Pa. July 16, 2007). The court found that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B) did not strip the court of jurisdiction to review plaintiffs' Adjustment of Status Applications (Form I-485) because defendants' delay in adjudicating the application is not a discretionary action specified in § 1255(a). The court found jurisdiction under the mandamus statute and the APA and ordered USCIS to adjudicate plaintiffs' adjustment applications. Plaintiffs' applications had been pending for approximately four years when the court issued its decision.
Hoyoung Song v. Klapakas, No. 06-05589, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27203 (E.D. Pa. April 12, 2007). The court found jurisdiction to compel defendants to adjudicate plaintiffs' Adjustment of Status Applications (Form I-485). The court held that defendants had a non-discretionary duty to act on the applications within a reasonable amount of time. The court also held that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) did not bar jurisdiction to review the delay in adjudication because plaintiffs did not request review of a decision or action, but of inaction.
Li Duan v. Zamberry, No. 06-1351, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12697 (W.D. Pa. 2007). The court found subject matter jurisdiction over the mandamus action to compel plaintiff's Adjustment of Status Application (Form I-485) and denied defendants' motion to dismiss. The court held that the 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B) does not divest the court of jurisdiction because the "pace" of adjudication is not the type of discretionary "action" contemplated by the statute. The court found that the weight of authority supported a finding that defendants had a nondiscretionary duty to adjudicate an adjustment of status application and therefore, mandamus jurisdiction was appropriate. Plaintiff's application was pending for approximately sixteen months when the courts issued its decision.
Texas
Valenzuela v. Kehl, No. 05-1764, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61054 (N.D. Tex. 2006). The court found jurisdiction over the mandamus action to compel adjudication of a Relative Petition (Form I-130). The court reasoned that the Department of Homeland Security has a duty to adjudicate adjustment of status applications within a reasonable time period. Plaintiff's petition had been pending for approximately five years when he filed his lawsuit.
Adverse Decisions
Courts of Appeals
Castillo v. Ridge, 445 F.3d 1057 (8th Cir. 2006). Plaintiff appealed a Nebraska district court's dismissal of his mandamus suit. Plaintiff initially brought a mandamus action in the district court to compel the government to adjudicate his Adjustment of Status Application (Form I-485). After filing the mandamus action, plaintiff's divorce from his wife became final. The district court granted the government's motion for summary judgment, holding that 1) plaintiff's divorce automatically revoked his visa petition under 8 C.F.R. §245.1(c)(4) rendering him ineligible for adjustment, and 2) plaintiff was not eligible for adjustment without a waiver of a child abuse conviction under INA §212 (h). The court of appeals upheld the district court's ruling. The court of appeals reasoned that because the grant of a §212(h) waiver is discretionary, plaintiff did not have a clear and indisputable right to a grant of his adjustment application. Furthermore, in dicta, the court noted that the six month delay in adjudicating the 212(h) waiver was not particularly lengthy.
District Courts
California
Li v. Chertoff, No. 06-02625, 482 F. Supp. 2d 1172, (S.D. Cal. April 2, 2007). Plaintiff filed a mandamus action to compel adjudication of an Adjustment of Status Application (Form I-485). The court granted defendants' motion to dismiss, finding that the court did not have jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief. The court reasoned that 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and § 1255 demonstrate Congress's intent to preclude courts from reviewing discretionary decisions or actions of USCIS regarding I-485 applications. Plaintiff's application had been pending for over three years when she filed her complaint.
Florida
Zahani v. Neufeld, No. 05-1857, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56416 (M.D. Fla. 2006). Plaintiff filed a mandamus action to compel adjudication of an Adjustment of Status Application (Form I-485). The court found subject matter jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. § 1331 in conjunction with the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701, but denied mandamus relief. The court held that that USCIS decisions to adjudicate or to withhold adjudication under 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(18) are discretionary and that FBI background checks are justifiable delays. Plaintiff filed the mandamus complaint more than three years after the adjustment of status application was filed.
Gemini Realty, Inc. v. Gonzalez, No. 06-786, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74194 (M.D. Fla. 2006). Plaintiff filed a mandamus action to compel adjudication of a Specialty Visa (Form I-129). The court held that mandamus relief was not available because plaintiff had no clear right to relief and defendants had no clear, nondiscretionary duty to act. The court further held that USCIS exercised its permissible discretion to withhold adjudication of a visa petition or undertake an investigation relating to visa eligibility under 8 C.F.R. § 103.2.
Grinberg v. Swacina, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19684 (S.D. Fla. 2007), appeal docketed, No. 07-11594 (11th Cir. Apr. 17, 2007). Plaintiff filed a mandamus action to compel adjudication of an Adjustment of Status Application (Form I-485). The court found that petitioners lacked subject matter jurisdiction, interpreting 8 U.S.C. 1255(a) to preclude judicial review of any "decision or action" of the Attorney General in immigration matters which includes the "pace at which immigration decisions are made." In addition, the court reasoned that Congress did not intend to confer jurisdiction because it did not provide a time frame in which adjustment of status applications must be adjudicated. The plaintiffs' applications had been pending for over 5 years when the court issued its decision.
Illinois
Sharif v. Chertoff, No. 07-1690, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51701 (N.D. Ill. July 18, 2007). Plaintiff filed a mandamus action to compel adjudication of his 129-F Fiance Petition. The court held that it has no jurisdiction to compel USCIS to alter the pace in which it processes plaintiff's petition because the pace is discretionary and review is barred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). The court reasoned that there may be jurisdiction in a case of extreme delay, but because the case had been pending for approximately a year and a half, the court could not say that USCIS had essentially refused to process the petition.
Massachussetts
Gebre v. Rice, 462 F. Supp. 2d 186 (D. Mass. 2006). The court declined to grant mandamus relief to compel the grant of a diversity visa to plaintiff's wife. The court found that the statute was unambiguous and prohibited the issuance of a diversity visa after the fiscal year had ended.
Minnesota
Chaudry v. Chertoff, No. 06-1303, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66842 (D. Minn. 2006). Plaintiff filed a mandamus action to compel adjudication of an Adjustment of Status Application (Form I-485). The court reasoned that 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a) allows for criminal and national security background checks to ensure eligibility for adjustment of status and therefore, the plaintiff had not established a clear and undisputable right to immediate adjudication. The applicant's petition had been pending for approximately 17 months when the court issued its decision.
Missouri
Yun Tan v. Chertoff, No. 07-236, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47395 (E.D. Mo. June 29, 2007). The plaintiff brought a mandamus action to compel USCIS to adjudicate her Adjustment of Status Application (Form I-485). The court held that the pace at which USCUS adjudicates plaintiff's application is discretionary because the time within which defendants complete the adjudication process falls within the discretionary provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1255. Therefore, the court held that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) barred review of the pace of adjudication. Plaintiff's application had been pending for approximately four years when the court issued its decision.
Jabr v. Chertoff, No. 06-543, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84588 (E.D. Mo. 2006). Plaintiffs filed a mandamus to compel adjudication of an Adjustment of Status Application (Form I-485) and a Relative Petition (Form I-130). The court held that background checks must be completed before a decision can be made on the applications. Thus, because plaintiffs do not have a right to forego the required background checks, they had not established that they have a clear and undisputable right to the relief sought or that the defendants have a nondiscretionary duty to honor that right. The applications had been pending for approximately three years when the court issued its decision.
Nebraska
Narra v. Gonzalez, No. 06-3289, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48725 (D. Neb. July 3, 2007). Plaintiffs brought a mandamus action to compel defendants to adjudicate plaintiffs' Adjustment of Status Applications (Form I-485). The court held that jurisdiction was barred under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) because the amount of time the USCIS takes to make a decision is completely discretionary under INA § 245. The plaintiffs' applications had been pending for over three years when the court issued its decision.
New Jersey
Omar v. Mueller, No. 07-813, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55290 (D.N.J. July 31, 2007). Plaintiff brought a mandamus action to compel defendants to act on his naturalization application. Because the plaintiff had not yet been interviewed in connection with the application, the court found that USCIS had no clear duty to proceed with the application and conduct the interview.
Shah v. Chertoff, No. 07-874, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51832 (D.N.J. July 18, 2007). Plaintiff brought a mandamus action to compel adjudication of his Adjustment of Status Application (Form I-485). The court granted the government's motion to dismiss, holding that there was no subject matter jurisdiction under the mandamus statute or the APA because the defendants had no clear, non-discretionary duty to adjudicate an adjustment application within a particular time period. Plaintiff brought the action one year and seven months after submitting his adjustment application.
Mehta v. Thompson, No. 07-0667, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37542 (D.N.J. May 23, 2007), appeal docketed, No. 07-2839 (3d Cir. June 18, 2007). The court found that the defendants did not have a non-discretionary duty to adjudicate plaintiff's Adjustment of Status Application (Form I-485). The court also held that review was barred under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B). Plaintiff's application had been pending for approximately three years when the court issued its decision.
Qui v. Chertoff, No. 07-123, 486 F. Supp. 2d 412 (D.N.J. May 15, 2007). Plaintiff brought a mandamus action to compel adjudication of her Adjustment of Status Application (Form I-485). The court found that defendants did not have a clear non-discretionary duty to adjudicate the application, but declined to decide whether 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) provided a separate bar to jurisdiction. Plaintiff's application had been pending for almost three years when she filed her mandamus complaint.
Ma v. Chertoff, No. 06-6177, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34953 (D.N.J. May 11, 2007). The court found that the pace of processing plaintiff's Adjustment of Status Application (Form I-485) was an "action" under 8 U.S.C 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) and therefore the court did not have jurisdiction over the mandamus action. Plaintiff's application had been pending for over three years when the court issued its decision.
Feng Li v. Gonzalez, No. 06-5911, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32608 (D.N.J. May 3, 2007). Plaintiffs brought a mandamus action to compel USCIS to adjudicate their Adjustment of Status Applications (Form I-485). The court held that immigration officials did not have a nondiscretionary duty to adjudicate plaintiffs' application because Congress did not specify a certain time period in which immigration officials must act to adjudicate the application, the regulations allow defendants to exercise discretion throughout the application process, and defendants may withhold adjudication. Plaintiffs' applications had been pending for approximately two and a half years when they filed their complaint.
Serrano v. Quarantillo, No. 06-5221, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26310 (D.N.J. 2007). Plaintiff brought a mandamus action to compel USCIS to adjudicate his Adjustment of Status Application (Form I-485). The court held that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B) removed plaintiff's petition from the court's jurisdiction because it prevented review of discretionary agency decisions. Plaintiff filed his I-485 application just over three years before the court issued its decision.
New York
Keane v. Chertoff, 419 F. Supp. 2d 597 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). Plaintiff brought a mandamus action to compel USCIS to rescind a decision denying plaintiff's Adjustment of Status Application (Form I-485) and to reschedule an interview for adjustment of status. The court held that there was no subject matter jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief because USCIS did not have a clearly defined, peremptory duty to rescind the denial of plaintiff's application and reschedule an interview, and USCIS had acted on plaintiff's application and informed her of that action.
Rhode Island
Rogatch v. Chertoff, No. 06-541, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28450 (D.R.I. April 17, 2007). The court held that jurisdiction to review plaintiff's Adjustment of Status Application (Form I-485) was barred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) because the agency had discretion over the adjustment process under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a). Plaintiff's application had been pending for approximately three years when the court issued its decision.
Texas
Maringo v. Gonzales, No. 06-3397, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80106 (S.D. Tex. 2006). Plaintiff brought a mandamus action to compel a grant of an Adjustment of Status Application) (Form I-485). The court dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because it did not have jurisdiction to review agency decisions on adjustment applications under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) and because the plaintiff was "inadmissible" under § 212(a)(6)(C).
Martinez v. Chertoff, No. 06-27, (E.D. Tex. 2006). Plaintiff brought a mandamus action to adjudicate an Adjustment of Status Application (Form I-485). The court held that there was no mandamus jurisdiction because the application was denied and because the plaintiff had an alternative remedy: to raise her claims before an immigration judge if the agency initiated removal proceedings.
Mustafa v. Pasquerell, No. 05-658, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8047 (W.D. Tex. 2006). Plaintiffs brought a mandamus action to compel adjudication of an Adjustment of Status Application (Form I-485) and a Relative Petition (Form I-130). The court found that plaintiffs did not have a clear right to adjudication because USCIS has discretion to perform background checks under 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(7) and withhold adjudication under 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(18), and there is no governing time limit. Plaintiffs' petition and application had been pending for approximately four years when the court issued its decision.
Wilkinson-Okotie v. United States Dep't of Homeland Sec., No. 05-3978, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69298 (S.D. Tex. 2006). Plaintiff brought a mandamus action to compel adjudication of an Adjustment of Status Application (Form I-485). The court found that mandamus relief was improper because only an immigration judge, not USCIS, had the authority to adjudicate an application for adjustment of status when the respondent was subject to a final order of removal.
Virginia
Safadi v. Howard, 466 F. Supp. 2d 696 (E.D. Va. 2006). Plaintiff brought a mandamus action to compel adjudication of an Adjustment of Status Application (Form I-485). The court found that mandamus was improper because USCIS did not owe the plaintiff a clear, nondiscretionary duty to process his adjustment of status application by any particular date. Plaintiff's application had been pending for approximately four years when he filed suit.