Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of Michigan

Castro-Asturias v. Raycraft

Western District of MichiganPaul Lewis MaloneyDecided September 29, 2026No. 1:26-cv-02643

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 does not challenge the constitutionality of his ICE detention.
Form or filing None named Read by a model
What the suit asked for Not recorded Read by a model
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons discussed above, the Court will enter a judgment dismissing Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 without prejudice.
Motion decided None Read by a model
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
Further, Petitioner’s emergency motion for immediate issuance of a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum is moot.
Disposition Other ruling A ruling none of the other labels describes. Read by a model
Under these circumstances, Petitioner’s § 2241 petition is moot, and the Court will dismiss the action without prejudice.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
Under these circumstances, Petitioner’s § 2241 petition is moot, and the Court will dismiss the action without prejudice.
The other claims Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
Under these circumstances, Petitioner’s § 2241 petition is moot, and the Court will dismiss the action without prejudice.
Months pending Not stated at filing The agency acted before this decision, so the months up to the decision are not a delay and are not shown. Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
Under these circumstances, Petitioner’s § 2241 petition is moot, and the Court will dismiss the action without prejudice.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:26-cv-02643
Filed
September 22, 2026
Ended
September 29, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
7 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.

Supreme Court and Sixth 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.