Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of Texas

Vurimindi v. Correa

Western District of TexasSusan HightowerDecided March 22, 2023No. 1:23-cv-00262

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 EOIR Read by a model
Plaintiff alleges that the BIA has not terminated his removal proceedings and, as of the filing date of the Complaint, the BIA case docket shows that Plaintiff is ordered to be removed from the United States.
Form or filing None named Read by a model
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
(4) BIA has a ministerial obligation to terminate removal proceedings and should be ordered to do so under § 1361
Kind of order A magistrate judge's recommendation Read by a model
This Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that the District Court DISMISS Plaintiffs lawsuit as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)
Motion decided None Read by a model
Whose motion The court on its own Read by a model
Because Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court is required by standing order to review his Complaint under § 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
This Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that the District Court DISMISS Plaintiffs lawsuit as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
This Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that the District Court DISMISS Plaintiffs lawsuit as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
This Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that the District Court DISMISS Plaintiffs lawsuit as frivolous under 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

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:23-cv-00262
Filed
March 10, 2023
Ended
April 18, 2023
Suit's filing to its end
39 days
How it ended
Dismissed, ground not recorded
From the record
idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)

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 Fifth 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.