Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of Missouri

Kansas City v. Immigration Court

Western District of MissouriBrian Curtis WimesDecided May 14, 2026No. 4:26-cv-00224

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 EOIR Read by a model
Plaintiffs name the Kansas City, Missouri Immigration Court (“KC Immigration Court”), the Executive Office of Immigration Review (“EOIR”), Todd Blanche,1 Markwayne Mullin,2 and the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) (collectively the “Government”) as defendants.
Form or filing None named Read by a model
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
In Count I, Plaintiffs request that the Court compel the Government to provide individualized custody hearings pursuant to the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), without requiring individual habeas petitions.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED the Government’s motion to dismiss (Doc. #14) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Rule 12(b)(6) governs dismissal motions for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Before the Court is the Government’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Civil Complaint.
Disposition Dismissed in part; some claims go on The government's motion to dismiss was granted in part: some claims were dismissed and others go on. Read by a model
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
The other claims Some dismissed, some go on Read by a model
The claims arising under the detention statutes in Counts I, II, and V, as more thoroughly outlined above, are hereby DISMISSED. The constitutional claims in Counts I, II, III, IV, and V, as more thoroughly outlined above, survive.
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

Docket
No. 4:26-cv-00224
Filed
March 17, 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. Other suits in this court.

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