Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Ahmed v. Gable

District of ColumbiaTimothy J. KellyDecided September 25, 2023

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 Not recorded Read by a model
Form or filing None named Read by a model
What the suit asked for Not recorded Read by a model
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For all the above reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants’ Amended Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 14, is GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants’ motion relies on Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants’ Amended Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 14, is GRANTED.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Thus, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion and dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Thus, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion and dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over a claim to compel a decision on Plaintiff’s TRIP inquiry
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Plaintiff’s complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJU- DICE in part for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and in remaining part for failure to state a claim.
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

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

Supreme Court and D.C. 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.