Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California

Nordheim v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)

Northern District of CaliforniaTrina L. ThompsonDecided August 15, 2025No. 3:25-cv-04571

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

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 USCIS Read by a model
Plaintiff alleges that USCIS has unreasonably delayed the adjudication of his Form I-765 application.
Form or filing I-765 (EAD) Read by a model
Plaintiff alleges that USCIS has unreasonably delayed the adjudication of his Form I-765 application.
What the suit asked for Issue a work permit Read by a model
On May 30, 2025, pro Plaintiff Odin Nordheim filed a complaint seeking to compel United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) to adjudicate his 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 DISMISS AND DENYING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS AND DENYING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
Because the Court lacks jurisdiction over this action, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order.1 This Order resolves ECF 17 and 19.
Disposition Dismissed as moot Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted. Read by a model
Thus, this action is moot.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
Thus, this action is moot.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
Thus, this action is moot.
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
Thus, this action is moot. Plaintiff has not shown that either of mootness exceptions applies as his sole wrongdoing alleged USCIS’s delay in adjudicating of his Form I- 765 application.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:25-cv-04571
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 20), deciding the motion (ECF 17) and the motion (ECF 19)
Filed
May 30, 2025
Ended
August 15, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
77 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
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.

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision, and the motion numbers are read from that entry's text. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

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.