Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of New Jersey

DZIADOSZ v. GARLAND

District of New JerseyEsther SalasDecided March 31, 2026No. 2:24-cv-10829

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
At the time of filing her Complaint, Plaintiff’s case status remained unchanged and USCIS had not adjudicated her Applications.
Form or filing I-765 (EAD); I-821D (DACA) Read by a model
On March 5, 2021, Plaintiff filed for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”) using Form I-821D with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”).
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
order Defendants to adjudicate Plaintiff’s Applications within 30 days
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion, (D.E. No. 15), and dismisses Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint in its entirety, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12 (b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint in its entirety, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 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
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion, (D.E. No. 15), and dismisses Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion, (D.E. No. 15), and dismisses Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For these reasons, Plaintiff’s claims under the APA and Mandamus Act (Counts I–II) are dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Accordingly, because Plaintiff has failed to allege a constitutionally protected interest in the adjudication of her DACA application and corresponding employment authorization application, Count III is dismissed without prejudice.
Months pending 44.8 months from the application to the suit; 60.8 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On March 5, 2021, Plaintiff filed for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”) using Form I-821D with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”).
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Poland Read by a model
Plaintiff is a citizen of Poland

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:24-cv-10829
Filed
November 29, 2024
Ended
March 31, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
487 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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.