Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of Pennsylvania

JACKSON v. EDLOW

Western District of PennsylvaniaSusan Paradise BaxterDecided January 27, 2026No. 1:25-cv-00307

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 USCIS Read by a model
The Government has provided evidence that Ms. Jackson has no application pending with USCIS.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status); I-765 (EAD) Read by a model
Petitioners allege that Respondents have failed to lawfully and timely adjudicate her I-485 application.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
writ of mandamus compelling USCIS to adjudicate without further delay all pending applications of Petitioner Einat Jackson including her application for lawful permanent residence (green card) and employment authorization.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Likewise, the motion for preliminary injunction must also be dismissed.
Motion decided Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
Likewise, the motion for preliminary injunction must also be dismissed.
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
Shortly after the filing of the petition, Petitioners filed a motion for preliminary injunction and expedited consideration.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
In the absence of any pending application, there is no clearly nondiscretionary duty of any of the Respondents, mandamus relief is inappropriate here, and the petition must be dismissed.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
In the absence of any pending application, there is no clearly nondiscretionary duty of any of the Respondents, mandamus relief is inappropriate here, and the petition must be dismissed.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
In the absence of any pending application, there is no clearly nondiscretionary duty of any of the Respondents, mandamus relief is inappropriate here, and the petition must be dismissed.
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. 1:25-cv-00307
Filed
October 14, 2025
Ended
January 27, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
105 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), judgment for defendant

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 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 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.