Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of California

v. Lehman et al

Southern District of CaliforniaCynthia BashantDecided December 15, 2025No. 3:25-cv-02225

Read the decisionOriginal on GovInfo

2,917 written decisions from 2,664 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 7:07 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 FBI Read by a model
The Court finds Petitioner did not specify a nondiscretionary legal duty that 27 Respondents failed to fulfill—and so, finds that Petitioner has not adequately alleged the 28 Court can compel the FBI to remove his name from the alleged watchlist.
Form or filing None named Read by a model
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
Petitioner seeks for his name to be removed from an alleged Federal Bureau 22 of Investigation (“FBI”) database.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE his Petition (ECF No. 7) as 26 failing to adequately state a claim for relief.
Motion decided None Read by a model
Whose motion The court on its own Read by a model
Section 1915(e)(2) mandates that the court 23 reviewing a complaint filed pursuant to the IFP provisions of § 1915 make and rule on its 24 own motion to dismiss
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE his petition (ECF No. 7) as 13 failing to adequately state a claim for relief.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE his petition (ECF No. 7) as 13 failing to adequately state a claim for relief.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE his Petition (ECF No. 7) as 26 failing to adequately state a claim for relief.
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. 3:25-cv-02225
Filed
August 27, 2025
Ended
January 16, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
142 days
How it ended
Ended, outcome not recorded
From the record
idb disp 17 (judgment: other), judgment for unknown

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 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.