Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of California

Azimov v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Southern District of CaliforniaGonzalo P. CurielDecided October 18, 2022No. 3:22-cv-00439

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 EOIR Read by a model
Six days later, the OMIC 10 accepted the NORIJ for filing and served a notice of the review hearing on October 25, 11 2021 and scheduled it on October 28, 2021.
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
the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject 12 matter jurisdiction.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of 8 jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject 12 matter jurisdiction.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject 12 matter jurisdiction.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject 12 matter jurisdiction.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject 12 matter jurisdiction.
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

Docket
No. 3:22-cv-00439
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 17)
Filed
April 4, 2022
Ended
October 19, 2022
Suit's filing to its end
198 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 3 (dismissed: lack of jurisdiction)

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.