Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

O.M.G. v. WOLF

District of ColumbiaJames E. BoasbergDecided December 10, 2020No. 1:20-cv-00786

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
Simultaneous to filing for mandamus, Petitioners sought a Temporary Restraining Order, asking the Court to compel ICE to implement COVID-19 safety protocols at the FRCs or, if such changes were not possible, to release them.
Form or filing None named Read by a model
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
Petitioners brought this mandamus Petition under the Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act, asking the Court to mandate improved safety protocols or, in the alternative, to release them.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
The Court, accordingly, will grant in part and deny in part Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Respondents ask this Court to dismiss all counts, contending that Petitioners fail to state a due-process or APA claim, and that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the latter, as well as over the FSA, mandamus, and declaratory-judgment counts.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
During the Court’s ongoing monitoring of the TRO, in May 2020, Respondents moved for dismissal of all claims.
Disposition Dismissed in part; some claims go on The government's motion to dismiss was granted in part: some claims were dismissed and others go on. Read by a model
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
The other claims Some dismissed, some go on Read by a model
Finding Respondents’ arguments persuasive on certain counts, the Court will grant their Motion as to all but due process and FSA.
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar applied Read by a model
To the extent Petitioners plead such a claim, the Court agrees that it lacks jurisdiction because discrete parole determinations are discretionary.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:20-cv-00786
Filed
March 21, 2020
Ended
March 3, 2021
Suit's filing to its end
347 days
How it ended
Dismissed, ground not recorded
From the record
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.

Supreme Court and D.C. 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.