Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of Michigan

Williams v. Secretary of State

Western District of MichiganSally J. BerensDecided November 21, 2025

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 Department of State Read by a model
Next, Plaintiff cites federal regulations he claims require the Secretary of State to provide him notice of whether his asserted corrections to his nationality were made and to advise him within 30 days “if the requested amendment is not in conformity with the Act.”
Form or filing None named Read by a model
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
seeking an order essentially directing the Secretary of State to recognize Plaintiff as a “Non-Citizen National,”
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
Accordingly, I have conducted an initial review of the petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)
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 other claims Dismissed Read by a model
In sum, because Plaintiff’s action is premised on sovereign citizen ideology and lacks an arguable basis in fact or law, I recommend that it be dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
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
Nationality United States Read by a model
Plaintiff’s petition itself, which invokes Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1481, to renounce his U.S. citizenship, is emblematic of sovereign citizen ideology.

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 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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.