Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Texas

Zevallos et al v. Noem et al

Northern District of TexasDavid L. HoranDecided September 23, 2026No. 3:26-cv-00839

Read the decisionOriginal on GovInfo

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 USCIS Read by a model
“Because [the husband] is in removal proceedings, USCIS lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the Form I-485 and the Court lacks jurisdiction to compel adjudication.”
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
the husband’s pending Form I-485 application to register permanent residence or adjust status
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
USCIS”) “continued failure to adjudicate the application is prolonging his detention and family separation.”
Kind of order A magistrate judge's recommendation Read by a model
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
Defendants move to dismiss the lawsuit under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants move to dismiss the lawsuit under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
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
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
The Court should (1) grant Defendants’ motion [Dkt. No. 17] and dismiss - 4 without prejudice Plaintiffs’ claims under the APA and for mandamus and declaratory relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction,
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
(2) dismiss Plaintiffs’ Due Process Claim with prejudice on its own motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and (3) relinquish jurisdiction over and therefore dismiss without prejudice all remaining claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar applied Read by a model
And, so, Plaintiffs “APA and Mandamus [and Declaratory Judgment] Act claims must be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.”

Other orders in this case

The group holds 2 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision. How decisions are grouped into cases.

DecisionDecidedJudgeDisposition
Zevallos et al v. Noem et alThis decision September 23, 2026 David L. Horan Magistrate judge's recommendation
Zevallos v. NoemThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted October 14, 2026 Brantley Starr Dismissed

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:26-cv-00839
Filed
March 16, 2026
Ended
October 14, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
212 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
order 2026-10-14 dismisses for want 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 Fifth 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.