Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of California

SHIRMOHAMANDALI v. Heinauer

Eastern District of CaliforniaDale A. DrozdDecided February 22, 2008

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,917 written decisions from 2,664 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 7:07 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 I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
In 2003, plaintiffs filed applications for adjustment of their status to permanent residence pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a).
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiffs seek an order requiring defendants to adjudicate their adjustment applications forthwith.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Plaintiffs' January 7, 2008 motion for summary judgment is granted;
Motion decided Summary judgment Read by a model
This case came before the court on February 22, 2008, for further hearing of the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment.
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
This case came before the court on February 22, 2008, for further hearing of the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment.
Disposition Granted in the applicant's favor The principal motion was granted in full: summary judgment for either side, an injunction or TRO, a writ or order to act, fees. A motion to dismiss granted in full counts as Dismissed; a transfer is listed apart. Read by a model
1. Plaintiffs' January 7, 2008 motion for summary judgment is granted;
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment for plaintiffs and close this case.
The delay claim Relief ordered Read by a model
Defendants shall adjudicate plaintiffs' adjustment applications, within thirty days after this order is filed;
Months pending 43.7 months from the application to the suit; 52.3 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Here, plaintiffs filed their adjustment applications in October 2003 in Laguna Niguel, California.
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 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 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.