Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Pennsylvania

Cooper v. Fitzgerald

Eastern District of PennsylvaniaRobert F. KellyDecided March 29, 2010

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
Specifically, in their brief, Plaintiffs argue that “[t]he basic common denominator is that all plaintiffs’ cases involve an 1-130, Petition for Alien Relative, filing with USCIS which USCIS refuses to adjudicate.”
Form or filing I-130 (relative petition); I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
there are different immigration applications at issue (1-130 Petitions for Alien Relative and 1-485 Applications to Adjust Status 1 )
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
In their First Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs seek among other things, declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and a Writ in the Nature of Mandamus to compel action on the outstanding applications.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
upon consideration of Defendants’ Motion to Sever (Doc No. 18), and the Responses and Replies thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED.
Motion decided None Read by a model
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Presently before the Court is the Motion to Sever filed by Defendants
Disposition Granted in the government'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
Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Sever will be granted.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
all Plaintiffs’ claims except those of first-named Plaintiffs, *92 Karpeh Cooper and Kelly Cooper, are dismissed without prejudice.
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
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Some of the Plaintiffs are United States citizens who have filed 1-130 applications to have their spouses declared as immediate relatives

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 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.