Passim

Mandamus decisions / Central District of California

Guadalupe v. Hernandez Pineda v. David Lester

Central District of CaliforniaDavid O. CarterDecided August 13, 2019No. 8:19-cv-00605

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 DHS Read by a model
seeking to compel the Department of Homeland Security to adjudicate Plaintiff’s 24 Application for Adjustment of Status, which had been pending for four years.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
Application for Adjustment of Status
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
seeking to compel the Department of Homeland Security to adjudicate Plaintiff’s 24 Application for Adjustment of Status
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Considering all of the 10 | circumstances, this action shall be dismissed in its entirety without prejudice.
Motion decided None Read by a model
Whose motion The court on its own Read by a model
On July 31, 2019, the Court issued a second OSC, ordering Plaintiff to show 7 cause why this action should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to 8 prosecute and to comply with Court orders.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Considering all of the 10 | circumstances, this action shall be dismissed in its entirety without prejudice.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Considering all of the 10 | circumstances, this action shall be dismissed in its entirety without prejudice.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT 14 | PREJUDICE.
Months pending 48 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
which had been pending for four years.
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. 8:19-cv-00605
Filed
March 29, 2019
Ended
August 13, 2019
Suit's filing to its end
137 days
How it ended
Dismissed, ground not recorded
From the record
idb disp 2 (dismissed: want of prosecution)

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 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.