Mandamus decisions / District of Arizona
Ortiz et al v. Noem et al
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 | Not recorded Read by a model |
|---|---|
| Form or filing | None named Read by a model |
| What the suit asked for | Not recorded Read by a model |
| Kind of order |
A ruling on a motion or the petition
Read by a model
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing Plaintiffs Maria Del Socorro Ortiz and Maria Dolores Ochoa Castro without prejudice. |
| Motion decided | None Read by a model |
| Whose motion |
The court on its own
Read by a model
Additionally, the Court finds that Plaintiffs Maria Del Socorro Ortiz and Maria Dolores Ochoa Castro should be dismissed from this action. |
| Disposition |
Other ruling
A ruling none of the other labels describes.
Read by a model
IT IS ORDERED finding that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is moot. (Doc. 13). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing Plaintiffs Maria Del Socorro Ortiz and Maria Dolores Ochoa Castro without prejudice. (Doc. 15). |
| Prevailing party |
Neither side
Read by a model
Due to Plaintiffs’ FAC, the Magistrate Judge’s R&R is now moot. |
| The delay claim |
Not decided here
Read by a model
the Court hereby declines to adopt the Magistrate Judge’s R&R because it is now moot. |
| The other claims |
Not decided here
Read by a model
the Court hereby declines to adopt the Magistrate Judge’s R&R because it is now moot. |
| 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 |
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.
| Decision | Decided | Judge | Disposition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ortiz et al v. Noem et al | March 9, 2026 | John Z. Boyle | Magistrate judge's recommendation |
| Ortiz et al v. Noem et alThis decision | 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 17)
- 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.
-
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
-
Independence Mining Co. v. Babbitt, 105 F.3d 502
Ninth Circuit, January 23, 1997. Mandamus and APA § 706(1) claims to compel delayed agency action are analyzed alike under the TRAC factors.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Vaz v. Neal, 33 F.4th 1131
Ninth Circuit, May 9, 2022. Section 706(1) compels only a clear, mandatory and discrete duty that has been unreasonably delayed under TRAC, and the APA's prerequisites go to the merits while § 1331 supplies jurisdiction.
ImmCite: unchecked, treatment not confirmed yet, not evidence either way. ImmCite has found no published decision citing this case as of 2026-11-10; it checks for new citing decisions daily. That is not a determination that the case is good law. The citation index lists 145 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.