Mandamus decisions / Western District of Oklahoma
Montes de Oca v. Figueroa
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 |
ICE
Read by a model
Petitioner, a native and citizen of Cuba, has been detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) since October 2025. |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
I-485 (adjustment of status)
Read by a model
His Petition before this Court raised a Fifth Amendment claim, a challenge to his unnecessary detention, and a challenge to the IJ’s refusal to rule on his Form I-485 application. |
| What the suit asked for | Not recorded Read by a model |
| Kind of order |
A magistrate judge's recommendation
Read by a model
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION |
| Motion decided |
Other motion to dismiss
Read by a model
the undersigned recommends the Court grant Respondents’ motion to dismiss and dismiss the Petition without prejudice as duplicative of Petitioner’s previously filed habeas action |
| Whose motion |
The government's motion
Read by a model
Respondents seek dismissal without prejudice or, alternatively, a stay pending resolution of Petitioner’s first-filed petition. |
| Disposition |
Magistrate judge's recommendation
A magistrate judge's report and recommendation. The district judge decides whether to adopt it, so it is not counted as either side's win.
Read by a model
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION |
| Prevailing party |
Neither side
Read by a model
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION |
| The delay claim |
Dismissed
Read by a model
the undersigned recommends the Court grant Respondents’ motion to dismiss and dismiss the Petition without prejudice as duplicative of Petitioner’s previously filed habeas action |
| The other claims |
Dismissed
Read by a model
the undersigned recommends the Court grant Respondents’ motion to dismiss and dismiss the Petition without prejudice as duplicative of Petitioner’s previously filed habeas action |
| Months pending |
22.2 months from the application to the court's decision
Read by a model
Petitioner’s I-485 application was filed on November 15, 2024 and is still pending. |
| TRAC factors | The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model |
| Threshold rulings | None Read by a model |
| Nationality |
Cuba
Read by a model
Petitioner, a native and citizen of Cuba |
How the case ended
- Docket
- No. 5:26-cv-01839
- On the docket
- This ruling (ECF 16)
- Filed
- July 20, 2026
- Status
- Pending as of the last docket check
A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why.
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 Tenth 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.
-
Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55
Supreme Court, June 14, 2004. Section 706(1) and mandamus reach only a discrete agency action that the agency is legally required to take, so a court cannot compel programmatic improvements or action the law leaves to agency discretion.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Forest Guardians v. Babbitt, 174 F.3d 1178
Tenth Circuit, April 22, 1999. Missing a concrete statutory deadline is agency action unlawfully withheld that a court must compel, while without a deadline the question is unreasonable delay; the holding still binds in the Tenth Circuit.
ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Not followed in the Ninth Circuit by Al Otro Lado v. Noem, 138 F.4th 1102 (2025).