Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of California

(PS) Alokozay v. Garland

Eastern District of CaliforniaDaniel J. CalabrettaDecided April 3, 2024No. 2:24-cv-00084

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 USCIS Read by a model
Plaintiff asks the 20 court to compel the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to adjudicate plaintiff’s 21 applications for humanitarian parole for three of her family members.
Form or filing I-131 (travel document) Read by a model
applications for humanitarian parole for three of her family members.
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
Plaintiff asks the 20 court to compel the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to adjudicate plaintiff’s 21 applications for humanitarian parole for three of her family members.
Kind of order A magistrate judge's recommendation Read by a model
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
Defendants have moved to dismiss this action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants have moved to dismiss this action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).
Disposition Magistrate judge's recommendation A magistrate judge's report and recommendation. The district judge decides whether to adopt it, so it is not counted as either side's win. Read by a model
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
This action be DISMISSED as moot;
Months pending 26.7 months from the application to the suit; 27.6 months from the application to the agency's action Read by a model
On February 6, 2024, the USCIS approved each of plaintiff’s applications.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
this action is moot and subject to dismissal 19 for lack of jurisdiction.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:24-cv-00084
Filed
January 8, 2024
Ended
May 14, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
127 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
decided 2024-05-14 on a voluntary dismissal; idb disp 12 (dismissed: voluntarily)

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 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.