Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of New York

Pierre v. Consulate General of Haiti

Southern District of New YorkLaura Taylor SwainDecided May 22, 2023

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,914 written decisions from 2,661 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 1:24 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 1,606 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,371 (85%), measured November 3, 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 Not recorded Read by a model
Form or filing None named Read by a model
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
The Court construes the amended complaint as a request for mandamus relief because Plaintiff asks this Court to compel foreign actors to accept his 2018 Haiti Declaration and consider his Tabula-Rasa Accord.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Plaintiff’s amended complaint, filed IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a)(1), is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Motion decided None Read by a model
Whose motion The court on its own Read by a model
The Court must dismiss an IFP complaint, or any portion of the complaint, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Plaintiff’s amended complaint, filed IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a)(1), is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Plaintiff’s amended complaint, filed IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a)(1), is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Plaintiff’s amended complaint, filed IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a)(1), is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
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 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.