Mandamus decisions / District of New Jersey
OBADO v. SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY MIDDLESEX COUNTY
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 |
USCIS
Read by a model
Here, Petitioner seeks to compel USCIS to stop his civil removal proceedings, which have been instituted as a result of his 1990 criminal conviction. |
|---|---|
| Form or filing | None named Read by a model |
| What the suit asked for |
Some other action
Read by a model
Here, Petitioner seeks to compel USCIS to stop his civil removal proceedings, which have been instituted as a result of his 1990 criminal conviction. |
| Kind of order |
A ruling on a motion or the petition
Read by a model
the Court dismisses the mandamus Petition in its entirety, pursuant to the Court’s screening authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim for relief |
| Motion decided | None Read by a model |
| Whose motion |
The court on its own
Read by a model
Finally, as explained in more detail below, the Court lacks jurisdiction over several of Petitioner’s claims for relief and may sua sponte consider whether it has subject matter jurisdiction. |
| Disposition |
Dismissed
The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness.
Read by a model
the Court dismisses the mandamus Petition in its entirety, pursuant to the Court’s screening authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim for relief |
| Prevailing party |
Government
Read by a model
the Court dismisses the mandamus Petition in its entirety, pursuant to the Court’s screening authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim for relief |
| The other claims |
Dismissed
Read by a model
the Court dismisses the mandamus Petition in its entirety |
| 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. 3:21-cv-10420
- On the docket
- This ruling (ECF 9), deciding the motion (ECF 7)
- Filed
- April 21, 2021
- Ended
- January 31, 2022
- Suit's filing to its end
- 285 days
- How it ended
- Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
- From the record
- idb disp 3 (dismissed: lack of jurisdiction)
A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why. Other suits in this court.
The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision, and the motion number is read from that entry's text. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.
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