Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of Florida

Mesa Martinez v. Noem

Southern District of FloridaDecided February 19, 2026No. 1:25-cv-23758

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,996 written decisions from 2,731 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided November 12, 2026. Updated November 14, 2026 at 1:17 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 1,617 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,406 (87%), 1,039 of them in this group, measured November 14, 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
As discussed below, Plaintiff seeks judicial review over USCIS’s discretionary denial of her adjustment of status under the Cuban Refugee Adjustment Act (“CAA”).
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
In her initial Complaint, Plaintiff sought relief under the Mandamus Act and the Administrative Procedure Act to compel adjudication of Plaintiffs' Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status.
What the suit asked for Not recorded Read by a model
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, [ECF No. 12], is GRANTED for the reasons stated herein.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
Defendants argue that Count I of the Amended Complaint must be dismissed “for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1),
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint for Mandamus, APA Judicial Review, and Declaratory Relief
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
As such, this case no longer presents a “live controversy” and dismissal for mootness is required.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
As such, this case no longer presents a “live controversy” and dismissal for mootness is required.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
As such, this case no longer presents a “live controversy” and dismissal for mootness is required.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Even if this matter was not rendered moot by the adjudication of Plaintiff’s Form I-485, the Court nevertheless lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint.
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
As such, this case no longer presents a “live controversy” and dismissal for mootness is required.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-23758
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 14)
Filed
August 20, 2025
Ended
February 19, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
183 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
terminated; no disposition recorded

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why. Other suits in this court.

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

Supreme Court and Eleventh 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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.