Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Texas

Orji v. Mayorkas

Northern District of TexasSam A. LindsayDecided October 28, 2022No. 3:22-cv-01174

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 Not recorded Read by a model
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Accordingly, the court dismisses without prejudice this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Motion decided None Read by a model
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
Petitioners’ Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Declaratory Judgment, and Mandamus (Doc. 1)
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Accordingly, the court dismisses without prejudice this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Accordingly, the court dismisses without prejudice this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Accordingly, the court dismisses without prejudice this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Accordingly, the court dismisses without prejudice this action 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

Docket
No. 3:22-cv-01174
Filed
May 27, 2022
Ended
October 28, 2022
Suit's filing to its end
154 days
How it ended
Ended, outcome not recorded
From the record
idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), judgment for unknown

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

Supreme Court and Fifth 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.