What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify whether administrative action occurred in the context of the case prior to the onset of litigation. The activity may involve an administrative official as well as that of an agency. To determine whether administration action occurred in the context of the case, consider the material which appears in the summary of the case preceding the Court's opinion and, if necessary, those portions of the prevailing opinion headed by a I or II. Action by an agency official is considered to be administrative action except when such an official acts to enforce criminal law. If an agency or agency official "denies" a "request" that action be taken, such denials are considered agency action. Exclude: a "challenge" to an unapplied agency rule, regulation, etc.; a request for an injunction or a declaratory judgment against agency action which, though anticipated, has not yet occurred; a mere request for an agency to take action when there is no evidence that the agency did so; agency or official action to enforce criminal law; the hiring and firing of political appointees or the procedures whereby public officials are appointed to office; attorney general preclearance actions pertaining to voting; filing fees or nominating petitions required for access to the ballot; actions of courts martial; land condemnation suits and quiet title actions instituted in a court; and federally funded private nonprofit organizations.

Opinion:
DIXON v. DUFFY, WARDEN.
No. 79.
Argued October 16, 1951.
Continued November 5, 1951.
Further continued May 12, 1952.
Per Curiam.
On November 5,1951, we ordered this cause “continued for such period as will enable counsel for petitioner to secure a determination from the Supreme Court of California as to whether the judgment herein was intended to rest on an adequate independent state ground or whether decision of the federal claim was necessary to the judgment rendered.” 342 U. S. 33, 34 (1951).
We have not yet been advised whether the Supreme Court of California has conducted any further proceedings in this case or has so entered as to become a part of the record, any order, opinion or certificate after November 5, 1951. We do not regard a letter, not apparently a part of the case record, received by the Clerk of this Court on March 31, 1952, signed by the Clerk of the Supreme Court of California as a sufficient “determination” of the question raised in our order of November 5, 1951.
Accordingly, the cause is ordered further continued for such period as will enable counsel for petitioner to secure from the Supreme Court of California its official determination as requested in our order of November 5, 1951.
Cause continued.
Mr. Justice Douglas, being of the opinion that the federal question in the case has been fully exposed, dissents.
Mr. Justice Minton took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Question: Did administrative action occur in the context of the case?

Choices:
No
Yes

Answer: 0