Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of Ohio

Berding v. Secretary, Department of Homeland Security

Southern District of OhioSusan J. DlottDecided October 6, 2022No. 1:22-cv-00048

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 Not recorded Read by a model
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
compelling defendants to adjudicate plaintiff’s I-485 application.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
compelling defendants to adjudicate plaintiff’s I-485 application.
Kind of order A magistrate judge's recommendation Read by a model
IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT
Motion decided None Read by a model
Whose motion The court on its own Read by a model
Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the Order to Show Cause (Doc. 9) warrants exercise of the Court’s inherent power and dismissal of this case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for lack of prosecution.
Disposition Magistrate judge's recommendation A magistrate judge's report and recommendation. The district judge decides whether to adopt it, so it is not counted as either side's win. Read by a model
IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT 1. This case be DISMISSED with prejudice for want of prosecution pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
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. 1:22-cv-00048
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 10)
Filed
January 27, 2022
Ended
October 27, 2022
Suit's filing to its end
273 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.

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

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.