Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of New York

Rose v. Capernol

Southern District of New YorkColleen McMahonDecided March 3, 2021

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 ICE Read by a model
Petitioner brings this action under the mandamus statute, naming as Respondents “District Judge Capernol,” who Petitioner does not otherwise identify, and “(ICE) Immigration Service.”
Form or filing None named Read by a model
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
asking this Court to compel immigration authorities to inform USP Victorville and the Federal Bureau of Prisons (FBOP) that he is a U.S. citizen and should not be removed from the United States, following the expiration of his federal sentence.
Kind of order A transfer order Read by a model
Therefore, in the interest of justice, this Court transfers this petition to the Central District of California.
Motion decided None Read by a model
Whose motion The court on its own Read by a model
Therefore, in the interest of justice, this Court transfers this petition to the Central District of California.
Disposition Transferred to another court An order moving the case to another court. It decides where the suit is heard, not who wins, so it is not counted as either side's win. Read by a model
Therefore, in the interest of justice, this Court transfers this petition to the Central District of California.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
Therefore, in the interest of justice, this Court transfers this petition to the Central District of California.
The other claims Not decided here Read by a model
The Clerk of Court is further directed to transfer this action to the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

How the case ended

This decision is not linked to a docket in the docket record yet, so how the case ended is not shown.

Supreme Court and Second 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.