Mandamus decisions / Western District of Louisiana
Merino-Lima v. Mullin
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
Following the conclusion of the master hearing, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) officers arrested Merino- Lima outside of the courthouse pursuant to § 1225(b)(1) and placed him in immigration detention in Natchez, Mississippi, where he remained for over eight months. |
|---|---|
| Form or filing | None named Read by a model |
| What the suit asked for |
Some other action
Read by a model
In addition to his request for declaratory relief, Merino-Lima seeks a permanent injunction compelling Respondents to facilitate his return to the United States. |
| Kind of order |
A ruling on a motion or the petition
Read by a model
Merino-Lima’s Complaint for Declarative and Injunctive Relief is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. |
| Motion decided | None Read by a model |
| Whose motion |
The plaintiff's motion
Read by a model
Before the Court is a Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief [Doc. No. 1] filed by Petitioner Gustavo Alberto Merino-Lima (“Merino-Lima”). |
| Disposition |
Granted in part
The principal motion was granted in part and denied in part.
Read by a model
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Merino-Lima’s Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief [Doc. No. 1] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. |
| Prevailing party |
Each side in part
Read by a model
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Merino-Lima’s Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief [Doc. No. 1] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. |
| The delay claim |
Relief ordered
Read by a model
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents conduct a judicial review per 8 U.S.C. §1225(b)(1)(B)(iii)(III) via telephone or videoconference within seven (7) days of this Ruling’s filing. |
| The other claims |
Relief denied
Read by a model
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Merino- Lima’s remaining claims are DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. |
| 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 |
Cuba
Read by a model
Merino-Lima, a native and citizen of Cuba |
How the case ended
- Docket
- No. 3:26-cv-02290
- Filed
- June 30, 2026
- Ended
- August 21, 2026
- Suit's filing to its end
- 52 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 Fifth 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.
-
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
-
Cheejati v. Blinken, 106 F.4th 388
Fifth Circuit, July 5, 2024. The pace at which USCIS adjudicates adjustment applications during visa retrogression is a discretionary action under § 1255(a) that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) shields from review, agreeing with the Eighth Circuit's Thigulla.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Mendoza-Tarango v. Flores, 982 F.3d 395
Fifth Circuit, December 8, 2020. A § 706(1) or mandamus claim requires a discrete, legally required action, and USCIS had no nondiscretionary duty to administer the naturalization oath at a prison.
ImmCite: unchecked, treatment not confirmed yet, not evidence either way. ImmCite has found no published decision citing this case as of 2026-11-01; it checks for new citing decisions daily. That is not a determination that the case is good law. The citation index lists 7 other decisions citing it, none a Supreme Court, BIA or Attorney General precedent or a published circuit opinion; ImmCite's status does not review them.