Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of Iowa

Zepeda v. United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Southern District of IowaStephen H. LocherDecided December 19, 2025No. 4:25-cv-00385

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 claims that upon intake with the Iowa Department of Corrections, ICE agents visited him and he signed voluntary deportation documents.
Form or filing None named Read by a model
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
He asks the Court to order Defendants to immediately execute his “Federal Detainer Order” and remove him to Mexico
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF 3) and Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (ECF 2) and DENIES the Petition for Writ of Mandamus (ECF 1).
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants move to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and failure to state a cause of action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants move to dismiss the petition.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF 3) and Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (ECF 2) are GRANTED.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment for Defendants.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Petitioner’s claim under section 1361 therefore must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
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 Mexico Read by a model
Petitioner alleges that he is a national of Mexico who came to the United States illegally in 2003.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 4:25-cv-00385
Filed
October 14, 2025
Ended
December 22, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
69 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 17 (judgment: other), judgment for defendant

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why.

Supreme Court and Eighth 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.