Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of Texas

EJRO v. McLane

Western District of TexasJason K. PulliamDecided October 2, 2020No. 5:20-cv-01157

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 DHS Read by a model
Petitioners, EJRO and RJRO, are “two unaccompanied noncitizen children from Honduras who the Department of Homeland Security is seeking to remove.”
Form or filing None named Read by a model
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
Through the mandamus petition, they seek to compel “Respondents to fulfil their obligation to place” them “in ‘240 proceedings’ (8 U.S.C. 1229a) as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1232(a)(5)(D)(i).”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Accordingly, it DENIES the motion and DISMISSES this action for lack of jurisdiction.
Motion decided Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
Accordingly, it DENIES the Motion for an Ex Parte Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 2)
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
Through the mandamus petition, they seek to compel “Respondents to fulfil their obligation to place” them “in ‘240 proceedings’ (8 U.S.C. 1229a) as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1232(a)(5)(D)(i).”
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Accordingly, it DENIES the motion and DISMISSES this action for lack of jurisdiction.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Accordingly, it DENIES the motion and DISMISSES this action for lack of jurisdiction.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Accordingly, it DENIES the motion and DISMISSES this action for lack of 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. 5:20-cv-01157
Filed
September 29, 2020
Ended
October 2, 2020
Suit's filing to its end
3 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.

Supreme Court and Fifth 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.