Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of California

Stepanyan v. U.S. Attorney General

Southern District of CaliforniaJanis Lynn SammartinoDecided November 10, 2026No. 3:26-cv-04175

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

3,016 written decisions from 2,750 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided November 13, 2026. Updated November 14, 2026 at 3:54 p.m. CT. Of the 1,617 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,406 (87%), 1,039 of them in this group, measured November 14, 2026. 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 instead.

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 CBP Read by a model
But in July, a Border Patrol Agent issued and served NTAs for each Petitioner, and in September, the Immigration Court docketed these cases.
Form or filing None named Read by a model
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
Petitioners filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus seeking an order compelling Respondents to issue Notices to Appear (“NTAs”).
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
The Court thus agrees that the Petition is moot and GRANTS the Motion (ECF No. 8).
Motion decided Other motion to dismiss Read by a model
Presently before the Court is Respondents’ Ex Parte Motion to Dismiss (“Mot.,” ECF No. 8).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Presently before the Court is Respondents’ Ex Parte Motion to Dismiss (“Mot.,” ECF No. 8).
Disposition Dismissed as moot Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted. Read by a model
The Court thus agrees that the Petition is moot and GRANTS the Motion (ECF No. 8).
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
The Court thus agrees that the Petition is moot and GRANTS the Motion (ECF No. 8).
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
The Court thus agrees that the Petition is moot and GRANTS the Motion (ECF No. 8).
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
The Court thus agrees that the Petition is moot and GRANTS the Motion (ECF No. 8).

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:26-cv-04175
Filed
July 21, 2026
Ended
November 10, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
112 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
Judgment of November 10, 2026, saying the agency acted, so the suit is moot

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