Passim

Mandamus decisions / Central District of California

Adex Odiete v. Ur Mendoza Jaddou

Central District of CaliforniaFernando Manzano OlguinDecided November 8, 2024No. 2:24-cv-06675

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
IT IS ORDERED that judgment be entered dismissing this action, without prejudice, for failure to timely effect service, failure to prosecute, and failure to comply with the orders of the court.
Motion decided None Read by a model
Whose motion The court on its own Read by a model
Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a court, on its own initiative, “must dismiss the action without prejudice” if service is not effected “within 90 days after the complaint is filed[.]”
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that judgment be entered dismissing this action, without prejudice, for failure to timely effect service, failure to prosecute, and failure to comply with the orders of the court.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that judgment be entered dismissing this action, without prejudice, for failure to timely effect service, failure to prosecute, and failure to comply with the orders of the court.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
IT IS ORDERED that judgment be entered dismissing this action, without prejudice, for failure to timely effect service, failure to prosecute, and failure to comply with the orders of the court.
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. 2:24-cv-06675
Filed
August 7, 2024
Ended
November 8, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
93 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 17 (judgment: other), judgment for defendant

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