Mandamus decisions / Middle District of Pennsylvania
Duroseau v. Noem
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 |
ICE
Read by a model
He further avers that on August 6, 2024, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) lodged a detainer against him, but he was never served a copy of said detainer. |
|---|---|
| Form or filing | None named Read by a model |
| What the suit asked for |
Some other action
Read by a model
order ICE to immediately lift the detainer lodged against him, and order the BOP to consider him for prelease. |
| Kind of order |
A ruling on a motion or the petition
Read by a model
For the above reasons, Duroseau’s motion to expedite will be granted, his complaint has been screened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A, and it will be dismissed. |
| Motion decided |
Preliminary injunction or TRO
Read by a model
The Court will deny the motion for a temporary restraining order. |
| Whose motion |
The court on its own
Read by a model
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court is obligated, prior to service of process, to screen a civil amended complaint in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. |
| Disposition |
Dismissed
The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness.
Read by a model
For the above reasons, Duroseau’s motion to expedite will be granted, his complaint has been screened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A, and it will be dismissed. |
| Prevailing party |
Government
Read by a model
For the above reasons, Duroseau’s motion to expedite will be granted, his complaint has been screened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A, and it will be dismissed. |
| The other claims |
Dismissed
Read by a model
For the above reasons, Duroseau’s motion to expedite will be granted, his complaint has been screened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A, and it will be dismissed. |
| 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 |
Other orders in this case
The group holds 2 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision. How decisions are grouped into cases.
| Decision | Decided | Judge | Disposition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duroseau v. NoemThis decision | November 13, 2025 | Karoline Mehalchick | Dismissed |
| Duroseau v. NoemThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted | August 6, 2026 | Karoline Mehalchick | Denied in the government's favor |
How the case ended
- Docket
- No. 3:25-cv-02041
- Filed
- October 29, 2025
- Ended
- November 13, 2025
- Suit's filing to its end
- 15 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 Third 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.
-
Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55
Supreme Court, June 14, 2004. Section 706(1) and mandamus reach only a discrete agency action that the agency is legally required to take, so a court cannot compel programmatic improvements or action the law leaves to agency discretion.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers Union v. OSHA, 145 F.3d 120
Third Circuit, March 16, 1998. The Third Circuit weighs the TRAC factors in deciding whether to compel agency action that has been unreasonably delayed.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read the one published decision citing this case, as of 2026-11-03; it does not treat the case adversely. That describes that decision; it is not a determination that the case is good law.
-
Geda v. Director, USCIS, 126 F.4th 835
Third Circuit, January 23, 2025. Section 1255(a) commits both the adjustment decision and the process and pace for reaching it to the Secretary's discretion, so § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) strips district courts of jurisdiction over challenges to USCIS's adjudication hold policy and § 1252(a)(2)(D) does not restore it.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance