That's exactly what I'm trying to say! According to AUSA, hayyyoot's background check was finished and USCIS is planning to adjudicate her application in the next 30 days. But they can't till the lawsuit is not dismissed or the case not remanded to them (I know, I know, in many cases they are still approving or sometimes even denying applications during the pending litigation; they certainly can't do this in the 9th Circuit Court jurisdiction, see US v. Hovsepian; hayyyoot's case is in Nevada, which I think belongs to the 9th Cir.)
So, in my opinion, the judge realised this and that's why he didn't bother to put any timeline in the remand order. And one more little difference: if the judge agrees to include a timeline, i.e., agrees with the Plaintiff's demand, Plaintiff wins and she would be entitled for reimbursement of her costs from the government. By remanding the case without the addition of timeline (as Plaintiff requested), probably nobody takes anything, i.e., nether Plaintiff, nor defendants will be entitled to any cost recovery. I know that in the case of a Pro Se Plaintiff this is not a huge amount of money.
Bottom line: now that USCIS regained jurisdiction on this case, they will adjudicate it quickly, because they have the results of the background check and they don't have a reason why to withold the decision.
In the appeal (if this would be necessary, which is highly unlikely, in my opinion), I would argue that intent of the Congress was to provide a way how to get moving the stalled natiralization applications when they adopted 8 U.S.C. 1447. The second option for the judge is to remand the matter to the Service, with specific instructions. Here the judge made the mistake that he didn't even bother to say that USCIS should adjudicate Plaintiff's application as soon as the background check is finished (like in several other cases, when the USCIS defense was that they can't adjudicate the case before the background check is not done by FBI). The judge remanded the case without ANY SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS, i.e., he didn't follow the spirit and the wording of the statue. In my opinion, this error, which seems only minor, is enough to initiate an appeal with the Circuit Court. Remember, the Circuit Courts look mainly to the legality of the cases judged at the district court level, i.e., they tend to intervene only if the staue was not followed closely, or they interpret the law and make decision based on the adopted interpretation. In this case the judge certainly didn't follow closely the statue because he didn't provide any specific instruction in his remand order.
, I MUST file an appeal, we can't be doormats here.