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:
MATLES v. UNITED STATES.
No. 378.
Decided April 7, 1958.
Frank J. Donner, Arthur Kinoy and Marshall Perlin for petitioner in No. 378.
Richard J. Burke for petitioner in No. 450.
Edward Bennett Williams and Morris Shilensky for petitioner in No. 494.
Solicitor General Rankin, Warren Olney, III, then Assistant Attorney General, Beatrice Rosenberg and /. F. Bishop for the United States in Nos. 378 and 450. Mr. Rankin, Acting Assistant Attorney General McLean, Miss Rosenberg and Eugene L. Grimm for the United States iii No. 494.
Together with No. 450, Lucchese v. United States, and No. 494, Costello v. United States, also on petitions for writs of certiorari to the same Court.
Per Curiam.
The petitions for writs of certiorari are granted. In No. 378 the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is reversed and the case is remanded to the District Court with directions to vacate the order holding the petitioner in contempt and to dismiss the complaint. In Nos. 450 and 494 the judgments of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit are reversed and the cases are remanded to the District Court with directions to dismiss the complaints. An affidavit showing good cause is a prerequisite to the initiation of denaturalization proceedings. The affidavit must be filed with the complaint when the proceedings are instituted. United States v. Zueca, 351 U. S. 91, 99-100.

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

Choices:
No
Yes

Answer: 0