Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of California

Madera v. United States Department of State

Eastern District of CaliforniaAnthony W. IshiiDecided January 21, 2020

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
Plaintiff seeks an order requiring the Department of State to return his documents submitted in support of his passport application.
Form or filing None named Read by a model
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
Plaintiff seeks an order requiring the Department of State to return his documents submitted in support of his passport application.
Kind of order A magistrate judge's recommendation Read by a model
This findings and recommendations is submitted to the district judge assigned to this action
Motion decided None Read by a model
Whose motion The court on its own Read by a model
The Court exercises its discretion to screen the plaintiff’s complaint in this action
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 findings and recommendations is submitted to the district judge assigned to this action
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
This findings and recommendations is submitted to the district judge assigned to this action
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
The complaint in this action be DISMISSED without leave to amend;
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Since there has been no final decision on Plaintiff’s passport application, Plaintiff cannot bring this action seeking review under the APA.
Months pending 14 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On November 20, 2018, Plaintiff filed for a new passport at the Lamont Postal Service.
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

This decision is not linked to a docket in the docket record yet, so how the case ended is not shown.

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