Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of Texas

Alpha K9 Pet Services v. Johnson

Southern District of TexasAndrew S. HanenDecided March 21, 2016No. 1:15-cv-00095

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 Business Plaintiffs assert that, in addition to failing to process the petitions, USCIS also failed to acknowledge receipt of the petitions.
Form or filing I-129 (worker petition) Read by a model
The complaint alleges that Defendants acted unlawfully by refusing to adjudicate and approve Plaintiffs’ H-2B visa petitions during the 2015 fiscal year.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
These plaintiffs requested that the Court declare the Defendants’ actions to be unlawful and enjoin the Defendants from “failing to receipt, consider, adjudicate and approve Plaintiffs’ petitions that are the subject of this action.”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Therefore, the motion to dismiss [Doc. No. 9] filed by the Defendants is granted
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
On August 13, 2015, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
On August 13, 2015, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
the case is dismissed without prejudice for lack of standing, or, alternatively, with prejudice *572 for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
the case is dismissed without prejudice for lack of standing, or, alternatively, with prejudice *572 for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
the case is dismissed without prejudice for lack of standing, or, alternatively, with prejudice *572 for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
the case is dismissed without prejudice for lack of standing, or, alternatively, with prejudice *572 for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Months pending 2.2 months from the application to the suit The agency acted before this decision, so the months up to the decision are not a delay and are not shown. Read by a model
During the period in between March 4, 2015, and March 19, 2015, the Agent Plaintiffs filed countervailing evidence petitions with USCIS on behalf of the Business Plaintiffs, in accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 214.2 (h)(9)(iii)(B)(2).
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
The government's delay arguments Visa availability accepted Read by a model
USCIS has already reached its statutory H-2B visa cap for the 2015 fiscal year.
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
As previously noted, fifteen of the Business Plaintiffs received approved visas for the 2015 hiring season. Dkt. No. 9-1. Their request for declaratory and mandamus relief is moot.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:15-cv-00095
Filed
May 22, 2015
Ended
March 21, 2016
Suit's filing to its end
304 days
How it ended
Dismissed, ground not recorded
From the record
idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)

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 Fifth 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.