Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Arizona

A.M.A.S. v. Mullin

District of ArizonaJohn C HinderakerDecided October 6, 2026No. 2:26-cv-06601

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,914 written decisions from 2,661 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 1:24 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 ICE Read by a model
ICE followed DHS’s March 30, 2025 9 Guidance Regarding Third Country Removals (the “Guidance”) in removing Plaintiff.
Form or filing None named Read by a model
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief requiring 22 Defendants to facilitate his return.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
The Court will 5 grant relief on Counts One and Three, deny Count Two as moot
Motion decided Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for a Temporary Injunction 24 (Doc. 2)
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for a Temporary Injunction 24 (Doc. 2), which Defendants oppose (Doc. 9), and to which Plaintiff has replied (Doc. 10).1
Disposition Granted in the applicant'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
Having found a due 7 process violation, the Court grants Count Three to the extent it seeks equitable relief 8 requiring Defendants to facilitate Plaintiff’s return, as set forth in Part V.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
Because Counts One and Three afford 13 Plaintiff complete relief, the Court will deny Count Two as moot.
The other claims Relief ordered Read by a model
the Court grants Count Three to the extent it seeks equitable relief 8 requiring Defendants to facilitate Plaintiff’s return, as set forth in Part V.
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 Egypt Read by a model
Plaintiff, a native and citizen of Egypt

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:26-cv-06601
Filed
September 15, 2026
Ended
October 6, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
21 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.

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 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.