Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California

Perez v. Garland et al

Northern District of CaliforniaSallie KimDecided January 31, 2025No. 3:24-cv-06525

Read the decisionOriginal on GovInfo

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 I-130 (relative petition) Read by a model
Plaintiff Gustavo Aldofo Perez filed this action on September 17, 2024 seeking a writ of mandamus related to the processing of his wife’s pending Form I-130.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiff Gustavo Aldofo Perez filed this action on September 17, 2024 seeking a writ of mandamus related to the processing of his wife’s pending Form I-130.
Kind of order A magistrate judge's recommendation Read by a model
the Court RECOMMENDS the district judge dismiss this action without prejudice.
Motion decided None Read by a model
Whose motion The court on its own Read by a model
On January 2, 2025, this Court issued an order to show cause explaining that the time limit for effecting service under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) had expired.
Disposition Magistrate judge's recommendation A magistrate judge's report and recommendation. The district judge decides whether to adopt it, so it is not counted as either side's win. Read by a model
the Court RECOMMENDS the district judge dismiss this action without prejudice.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
the Court RECOMMENDS the district judge dismiss this action without prejudice.
The delay claim Not decided here Read by a model
the Court does not have authority to make a dispositive ruling in this case
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. 3:24-cv-06525
Filed
September 17, 2024
Ended
February 24, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
160 days
How it ended
Dismissed, ground not recorded
From the record
idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)

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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.