Mandamus decisions / Middle District of Florida

Costa Soares v. United States Department of State

Middle District of FloridaJulie S. SneedDecided October 9, 2025No. 6:24-cv-02153

Read the decision Original on CourtListener

2,917 written decisions from 2,664 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 7:07 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	Department of State Read by a model Count two alleges that the Department of State owes Plaintiff a duty to issue him a United States passport given his automatic acquisition of United States citizenship at birth through Ms. Taylor.
Form or filing	None named Read by a model
What the suit asked for	Some other action Read by a model Count two alleges that the Department of State owes Plaintiff a duty to issue him a United States passport given his automatic acquisition of United States citizenship at birth through Ms. Taylor.
Kind of order	A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model Upon consideration, for the reasons outlined below, the court grants Defendants’ motion, denies Plaintiff’s motion, and dismisses this case without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Motion decided	Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. 42) is GRANTED. 2. Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief (Dkt. 46) is DENIED.
Whose motion	Cross-motions Read by a model 1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. 42) is GRANTED. 2. Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief (Dkt. 46) is DENIED.
Disposition	Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model the court grants Defendants’ motion, denies Plaintiff’s motion, and dismisses this case without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Prevailing party	Government Read by a model the court grants Defendants’ motion, denies Plaintiff’s motion, and dismisses this case without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The delay claim	Dismissed Read by a model Because Plaintiff has adequate alternative remedies available to him, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over his APA and mandamus claims.
The other claims	Dismissed Read by a model Count three is based upon counts one and two, which fail for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; consequently, count three also fails.
Months pending	7 months from the application to the suit; 17.8 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model in April 2024, he visited the United States Consulate General in Sao Paulo, Brazil, to apply for a United States passport based on his United States citizenship
TRAC factors	The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings	None Read by a model
Nationality	United States Read by a model he acquired United States citizenship at birth because his biological mother, Fawn Clark Taylor, was a United States citizen born and raised in the United States.

How the case ended

Docket: No. 6:24-cv-02153
Filed: November 25, 2024
Ended: October 9, 2025
Suit's filing to its end: 318 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.

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 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.

Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U.S. 667

Supreme Court, June 26, 2018. Mandel's facially-legitimate-and-bona-fide standard governs constitutional challenges to entry restrictions, and a citation to a valid statutory ground ordinarily satisfies it.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Department of State v. Muñoz, 602 U.S. 899

Supreme Court, June 21, 2024. A U.S. citizen has no fundamental liberty interest in a noncitizen spouse's admission, so marriage alone entitles the citizen neither to Mandel review of the consular refusal nor to an explanation beyond the statutory citation.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753

Supreme Court, June 29, 1972. When a visa refusal burdens a U.S. citizen's own constitutional rights, courts ask only whether the Executive gave a facially legitimate and bona fide reason and do not look behind it.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55

Supreme Court, June 14, 2004. Section 706(1) and mandamus reach only a discrete agency action that the agency is legally required to take, so a court cannot compel programmatic improvements or action the law leaves to agency discretion.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Del Valle v. Secretary of State, 16 F.4th 832

Eleventh Circuit, October 26, 2021. Consular nonreviewability is not jurisdictional, but a refusal citing specific inadmissibility provisions is facially legitimate and bona fide, and in camera review of the underlying evidence is foreclosed absent plausibly alleged bad faith.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 3 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-10-29; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.
Kanapuram v. Director, USCIS, 131 F.4th 1302

Eleventh Circuit, March 20, 2025. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) strips district courts of jurisdiction over APA unreasonable-delay claims about pending adjustment applications where the delay is part of the discretionary adjudication process, including retrogression holds.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 2 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-11-02; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.