Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Nevada

Ramos-Ruiz v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

District of NevadaDecided July 30, 2025No. 2:25-cv-00825

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 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
compel defendants2 to initiate a criminal investigation into Maria Louisa Sanchez-Plata
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Order Dismissing Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Motion decided None Read by a model
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
On June 30, 2025, pro se petitioner Gonzalo Ramos-Ruiz filed a writ of mandamus.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
DISMISSED for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Without standing, this court lacks jurisdiction over this action, so it must be dismissed.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Without standing, this court lacks jurisdiction over this action, so it must 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 None Read by a model

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:25-cv-00825
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 6)
Filed
May 12, 2025
Ended
July 30, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
79 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 3 (dismissed: lack of jurisdiction)

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 Ninth 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.