Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Arizona

Ortiz et al v. Noem et al

District of ArizonaJohn Z. BoyleDecided March 9, 2026No. 2:26-cv-00084

Read the decisionOriginal on GovInfo

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 USCIS Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ Complaint is silent on when they filed their FOIA request, whether they received any response from the USCIS, and whether they appealed a decision—if a decision was rendered.
Form or filing I-601 (waiver) Read by a model
Plaintiffs action seeks to compel Defendants to adjudicate Plaintiff Maria Dolores Ochoa Castro’s I-601 Application for Waiver of Grounds of Indamissibility which was filed in February of 2019.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiffs action seeks to compel Defendants to adjudicate Plaintiff Maria Dolores Ochoa Castro’s I-601 Application for Waiver of Grounds of Indamissibility which was filed in February of 2019.
Kind of order A magistrate judge's recommendation Read by a model
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Motion decided None Read by a model
Whose motion The court on its own Read by a model
Because Plaintiffs are attempting to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court will, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, screen Plaintiffs’ Complaint.
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
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court recommends Plaintiffs’ APA claim be dismissed with prejudice.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
the Court recommends Plaintiffs’ FOIA count be dismissed without prejudice.
Months pending 82.7 months from the application to the suit; 84.7 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
In February 2019, Plaintiffs filed a I-601 application.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

Other orders in this case

The group holds 3 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision. How decisions are grouped into cases.

DecisionDecidedJudgeDisposition
Ortiz et al v. Noem et alThis decision March 9, 2026 John Z. Boyle Magistrate judge's recommendation
Ortiz et al v. Noem et al April 21, 2026 Other ruling
Ortiz v. NoemThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted April 28, 2026 John Z. Boyle Magistrate judge's recommendation

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:26-cv-00084
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 13)
Filed
January 7, 2026
Ended
May 19, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
132 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
decided 2026-04-28 says the agency acted (moot); idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)

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

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.