Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of Oklahoma

Alvaro-Gallo v. United States

Western District of OklahomaRalph G. ThompsonDecided February 17, 1993

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

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 Department of Justice Read by a model
The Department of Justice has approximately 93 immigration judges stationed at 24 locations.
Form or filing None named Read by a model
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the Immigration and Naturalization Service to promptly conduct his deportation hearing rather than waiting until after the completion of his incarceration.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Argo's Report and Recommendation of June 30, 1992 is adopted and petitioner's petition for mandamus is DENIED and DISMISSED.
Motion decided Other motion to dismiss Read by a model
Respondents filed a motion to dismiss or alternatively for summary judgment and petitioner was given notice of his obligation to respond by Order of January 17, 1992.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Respondents filed a motion to dismiss or alternatively for summary judgment
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Argo's Report and Recommendation of June 30, 1992 is adopted and petitioner's petition for mandamus is DENIED and DISMISSED.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Argo's Report and Recommendation of June 30, 1992 is adopted and petitioner's petition for mandamus is DENIED and DISMISSED.
The delay claim Relief denied Read by a model
petitioner's petition for mandamus is DENIED and DISMISSED.
The other claims Relief denied Read by a model
Further, this court does not believe that petitioner is in custody for purposes of habeas relief for the reasons thoughtfully stated by the Magistrate Judge.
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

How the case ended

This decision is not linked to a docket in the docket record yet, so how the case ended is not shown.

Supreme Court and Tenth 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.