Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of California

Singh v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Services

Eastern District of CaliforniaErica P. GrosjeanDecided October 6, 2026

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 USCIS Read by a model
Furthermore, Defendants argue that Plaintiff has not demonstrated that USCIS is required to adjudicate his application within a statutory timeline.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
In the complaint, Plaintiff seeks adjudication of his Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
In the complaint, Plaintiff seeks adjudication of his Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status.
Kind of order A magistrate judge's recommendation Read by a model
These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Motion decided None Read by a model
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on July 8, 2026.
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
These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
This action be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a court order.
Months pending 12.6 months from the application to the suit; 18.2 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiff filed his application to Adjust Status on March 31, 2025.
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

This decision is not linked to a docket in the docket record yet, so how the case ended is not shown.

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.