Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Georgia

Saheb v. Allen

Northern District of GeorgiaSteven Daniel GrimbergDecided September 23, 2026No. 1:25-cv-06589

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

3,016 written decisions from 2,750 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided November 13, 2026. Updated November 14, 2026 at 3:54 p.m. CT. Of the 1,617 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,406 (87%), 1,039 of them in this group, measured November 14, 2026. 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 instead.

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 Not recorded Read by a model
Form or filing None named Read by a model
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiff initiated this action pro se, seeking mandamus and injunctive relief to compel Defendants to adjudicate his wife’s visa petition.
Kind of order A stipulated or agreed order Read by a model
Since it appears that Plaintiff seeks to withdraw his claims, this case is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1).
Motion decided Other motion to dismiss Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss [ECF 5] is DENIED as moot.
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
he filed a notice that the Court construes as an attempt to voluntarily dismiss this case under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a).
Disposition Stipulated or agreed order An order the parties asked for together, or the plaintiff's own dismissal. Not counted as either side's win. Read by a model
Since it appears that Plaintiff seeks to withdraw his claims, this case is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1).
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
Since it appears that Plaintiff seeks to withdraw his claims, this case is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1).
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Since it appears that Plaintiff seeks to withdraw his claims, this case is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1).
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. 1:25-cv-06589
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 9)
Filed
November 17, 2025
Ended
September 23, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
310 days
How it ended
Ended, outcome not 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.

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

Supreme Court and Eleventh 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.