Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California

Murugesan v. Edlow

Northern District of CaliforniaSallie KimDecided June 11, 2026No. 3:25-cv-10558

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
Rather, Plaintiffs are challenging USCIS’s failure to act on their applications within a reasonable time and asking this Court to order USCIS to render a decision on their applications.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
seek injunctive and mandamus relief ordering Defendants to adjudicate their pending Form I-485 Applications to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status (hereinafter “I-485 Application”).
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
seek injunctive and mandamus relief ordering Defendants to adjudicate their pending Form I-485 Applications to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status (hereinafter “I-485 Application”).
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Motion decided Fees under EAJA; Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Because the Court grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ request for costs and fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
On March 17, 2026, Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Disposition Dismissed in part; some claims go on The government's motion to dismiss was granted in part: some claims were dismissed and others go on. Read by a model
Defendants do not appear to challenge Plaintiff’s APA or mandamus claims on Rule 12(b)(6) grounds.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
Defendants do not appear to challenge Plaintiff’s APA or mandamus claims on Rule 12(b)(6) grounds.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
Defendants do not appear to challenge Plaintiff’s APA or mandamus claims on Rule 12(b)(6) grounds.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
The Court DISMISSES Plaintiffs’ due process claim with LEAVE TO AMEND if, in good faith, they can allege additional facts to support such a claim.
Months pending 8.3 months from the application to the suit; 14.4 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiffs filed Mr. Murugesan’s I-526E and I-485 Forms concurrently on March 31, 2025.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected Read by a model
8 U.S.C § 1252 (a)(2)(B)(ii) does not strip this Court of subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s “pace-of-adjudication” claim.
Nationality India Read by a model
Mr. Murugesan, a citizen of India,

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:25-cv-10558
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 21)
Filed
December 9, 2025
Ended
June 11, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
184 days
How it ended
Ended, outcome not recorded
From the record
terminated; no disposition recorded

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 Ninth 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.