Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of Pennsylvania

VURIMINDI v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF UNITED STATES et al

Western District of PennsylvaniaDavid S. CerconeDecided August 7, 2018

Read the decisionOriginal on GovInfo

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 ICE Read by a model
In the instant mandamus petition (ECF No. 7), Vurimindi requests the Court to compel the Attorney General, the DHS, and ICE to lift the immigration detainer that has been placed on him.
Form or filing None named Read by a model
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
He seeks to compel Respondents to lift the immigration detainer issued against him.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Accordingly, the “Writ of Petition” will be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2).
Motion decided None Read by a model
Whose motion The court on its own Read by a model
Both § 1915A and § 1915(e)(2)(B) provide for sua sponte dismissal of the petition, or any portion thereof
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Accordingly, the “Writ of Petition” will be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2).
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Accordingly, the “Writ of Petition” will be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2).
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction for both Vurimindi’s mandamus claim and for his § 2241 habeas claim.
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
Nationality India Read by a model
Vurimindi is a native and citizen of India.

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.