Passim

Mandamus decisions / Middle District of Tennessee

Karami v. Mayorkas et al

Middle District of TennesseeLuke A. EvansDecided June 25, 2026No. 3:24-cv-00917

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
On July 29, 2024, Plaintiff, Maryam Karami, filed her complaint seeking a Writ of Mandamus compelling the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and other Defendants to complete the adjudication of her N-400 Application for Naturalization (Doc. No. 1).
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
her N-400 Application for Naturalization
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
complete the adjudication of her N-400 Application for Naturalization
Kind of order A magistrate judge's recommendation Read by a model
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Motion decided None Read by a model
Whose motion The court on its own Read by a model
The Court now addresses Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute through this Report and Recommendation as part of its case management
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
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court respectfully recommends dismissing this case under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute.
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-00917
Filed
July 29, 2024
Ended
July 14, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
715 days
How it ended
Ended, outcome not recorded
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 Sixth 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.