Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Pennsylvania

Philip Wambugu v. Teresa Jones

Eastern District of PennsylvaniaNitza I Quinones AlejandroDecided May 21, 2026No. 2:26-cv-01856

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	USCIS Read by a model First, he asserts that on an unspecified date he submitted a Form I-864 to USCIS in support of a family member’s immigration petition, and that USCIS has failed to adjudicate the form or the related immigration petitions.
Form or filing	I-864 Read by a model First, he asserts that on an unspecified date he submitted a Form I-864 to USCIS in support of a family member’s immigration petition, and that USCIS has failed to adjudicate the form or the related immigration petitions.
What the suit asked for	Decide the application Read by a model First, he asserts that on an unspecified date he submitted a Form I-864 to USCIS in support of a family member’s immigration petition, and that USCIS has failed to adjudicate the form or the related immigration petitions.
Kind of order	A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model The Court will grant Wambugu’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and will dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
Motion decided	None Read by a model
Whose motion	The court on its own Read by a model When allowing a plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis, the Complaint is subject to screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), which requires dismissal if the Complaint fails to state a claim.
Disposition	Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model The Court will grant Wambugu’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and will dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
Prevailing party	Government Read by a model The remaining claims will be dismissed without prejudice.
The delay claim	Dismissed Read by a model The Court will grant Wambugu’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and will dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
The other claims	Dismissed Read by a model His state-law perjury claim will be dismissed with prejudice. The remaining claims will be dismissed without prejudice.
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. 2:26-cv-01856
Filed: March 19, 2026
Ended: July 22, 2026
Suit's filing to its end: 125 days
How it ended: Ended, outcome not recorded
From the record: terminated; no disposition recorded

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why.

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 14, 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