Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Georgia

MORRISON v. BLINKEN

Northern District of GeorgiaDecided July 13, 2023No. 1:23-cv-00477

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 Department of State Read by a model
Without such an allegation, the Court can only conclude that Morrison’s passport application stalemate is a problem of his own making, not a result of the U.S. Department of State’s delinquent administration of his passport application.
Form or filing None named Read by a model
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Morrison seeks a writ of mandamus as well as declaratory and injunctive relief compelling U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken to adjudicate his passport application
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order [ECF 1] is DENIED AS MOOT.
Motion decided Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order [ECF 1] is DENIED AS MOOT.
Whose motion The court on its own Read by a model
This matter is before the Court on a frivolity review of Plaintiff Clive Morrison’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus (the Petition) and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (the Motion) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B).
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order [ECF 1] is DENIED AS MOOT.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For these reasons, the Court has no subject matter jurisdiction over Morrison’s case; it is frivolous and due to be dismissed.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
So, Morrison’s Mandamus and APA claims for relief must be dismissed.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
For these reasons, the Court has no subject matter jurisdiction over Morrison’s case; it is frivolous and due to be dismissed.
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
For example, the mere fact that Morrison asks for relief under the APA and Mandamus Act in the alternative to each other and to his due process claim is evidence that other adequate procedures exist.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:23-cv-00477
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 13)
Filed
February 1, 2023
Ended
August 8, 2023
Suit's filing to its end
188 days
How it ended
Dismissed, ground not recorded
From the record
idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)

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.