Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Arizona

Martinez v. Kramar

District of ArizonaSharad H DesaiDecided January 8, 2026No. 2:26-cv-00065

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 Not recorded Read by a model
Form or filing I-130 (relative petition) Read by a model
Plaintiff Mario Martinez’s pending I-130 Petition on behalf of his father
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiffs seek mandamus relief in the form of an order compelling Defendants to adjudicate the pending I-130 Petition
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order without notice (Doc. 2) is denied.
Motion decided Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order without notice (Doc. 2) is denied.
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order without notice (Doc. 2) is denied.
Disposition Denied in the government's favor The principal motion was denied in full: a motion to dismiss denied so the case goes on, or relief denied on the merits. Read by a model
Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order without notice (Doc. 2) is denied.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order without notice (Doc. 2) is denied.
The delay claim Not decided here Read by a model
Plaintiff’s request for a Temporary Restraining Order with notice (Doc. 2) remains pending
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. 2:26-cv-00065
Filed
January 5, 2026
Ended
August 26, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
233 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.