Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Otero v. U.S. Department of Justice

District of ColumbiaBeryl A. HowellDecided February 12, 2018

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,917 written decisions from 2,664 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 7:07 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 FBI Read by a model
The FBI is entitled to refuse to perform any additional work on the plaintiff’s FOIA request because he had not paid the $20.10 still owed from the release of records in June 2000 in response to FOIPA No. 430046- 001.
Form or filing None named Read by a model
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
The relief sought by the plaintiff – release and amendment of records maintained by the FBI – is available under the FOIA and the Privacy Act.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Pending before the Court is the defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 14, which, for the reasons discussed below, is granted.
Motion decided Summary judgment Read by a model
Pending before the Court is the defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 14, which, for the reasons discussed below, is granted.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Pending before the Court is the defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 14, which, for the reasons discussed below, is granted.
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
Pending before the Court is the defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 14, which, for the reasons discussed below, is granted.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Pending before the Court is the defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 14, which, for the reasons discussed below, is granted.
The other claims Relief denied Read by a model
Pending before the Court is the defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 14, which, for the reasons discussed below, is granted.
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

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 D.C. 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.