Mandamus decisions / District of New Mexico
Castillo v. Ybarra
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
Pursuant to that warrant, Doc. 12 at 14 (Petitioner Castillo’s ‘Appeal Brief’), DHS/ICE took custody of Petitioner Castillo, “without setting a bond,” Doc. 1 at 6 ¶ 18, and “then transferred [him] to a processing center at 8915 Montana Ave, El Paso, Texas, for immigration proceedings,” Doc. 12 at 14. |
|---|---|
| Form or filing | None named Read by a model |
| What the suit asked for | Not recorded Read by a model |
| Kind of order |
A magistrate judge's recommendation
Read by a model
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION |
| Motion decided |
Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim
Read by a model
“When a defendant seeks to dismiss a claim under both Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6),” as is the case here, “the Court must decide the Rule 12(b)(1) motion first.” |
| Whose motion |
Cross-motions
Read by a model
Petitioners’ ‘Class Action Complaint and Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus’ (“Petition”), filed October 29, 2025, Doc. 1, and Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss Class Action Complaint and Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Motion to Dismiss”) |
| 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
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION |
| Prevailing party |
Neither side
Read by a model
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION |
| The other claims |
Some dismissed, some go on
Read by a model
The Court, having reviewed the record and the relevant law, recommends that both the Petition (Doc. 1) and Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 21) be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as set forth herein. |
| 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
Count III, with respect to Petitioner Castillo, individually: DISMISS AS MOOT under FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1). |
| Nationality |
Mexico
Read by a model
Petitioner Castillo is thirty-three years old and a citizen and national of Mexico. |
How the case ended
- Docket
- No. 2:25-cv-01074
- Filed
- October 29, 2025
- 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.
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).