Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Ohio

Samuel v. U.S. Department of State

Northern District of OhioSolomon Oliver, JrDecided June 25, 2024No. 5:24-cv-00493

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 Department of State Read by a model
Pro Se Plaintiff Osarenmwinda Ojo Samuel has filed a civil complaint in this case against the United States Department of State and the United States Consulate General in Lagos, Nigeria.
Form or filing DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
wrongful delay in the issuance of [an] immigration visa to [Plaintiff’s son] Master Samson Osarenmwinda Ojo.
What the suit asked for Schedule an interview Read by a model
For relief, he states he seeks to compel Defendants to set an appointment with his son to facilitate the issuance of an immigration visa and to pay him five thousand dollars.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Upon review, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint warrants sua sponte dismissal pursuant to Apple v. Glenn.
Motion decided None Read by a model
Whose motion The court on its own Read by a model
Upon review, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint warrants sua sponte dismissal pursuant to Apple v. Glenn.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Plaintiff’s complaint is implausible, unsubstantial, and devoid of merit and is dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Plaintiff’s complaint is implausible, unsubstantial, and devoid of merit and is dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
is dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Court’s authority established in Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477.
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. 5:24-cv-00493
Filed
March 15, 2024
Ended
June 25, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
102 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
order 2024-06-25 dismisses for want of jurisdiction; idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)

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

Supreme Court and Sixth 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.