Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California

Gupta v. USCIS

Northern District of CaliforniaRichard G. SeeborgDecided August 6, 2026No. 3:26-cv-04329

Read the decisionOriginal 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 USCIS Read by a model
USCIS asserts it has now approved Gupta’s Form I-821D, deferring action.
Form or filing I-765 (EAD); I-821D (DACA) Read by a model
his Form I-821D, request for renewal of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, and his associated Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
to adjudicate his Form I-821D, request for renewal of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, and his associated Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
Motion decided Other motion to dismiss Read by a model
The motion to dismiss is granted.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
USCIS therefore moves to dismiss, contending this action is moot.
Disposition Dismissed as moot Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted. Read by a model
The motion to dismiss is granted.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
Gupta acknowledges the action is moot, and does not oppose dismissal.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
Gupta acknowledges the action is moot, and does not oppose dismissal.
Months pending Not stated at filing The agency acted before this decision, so the months up to the decision are not a delay and are not shown. Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
Gupta acknowledges the action is moot, and does not oppose dismissal.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:26-cv-04329
Filed
May 11, 2026
Ended
August 6, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
87 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
terminated; no disposition recorded

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.