Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of California

M.M.M. ex rel. J.M.A. v. Sessions

Southern District of CaliforniaSabrawDecided August 16, 2018

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
(1) have been, are, or will be detained in immigration custody by the DHS, and (2) have a minor child who is or will be separated from them by DHS and detained in ORR custody, ORR foster care, or DHS custody
Form or filing None named Read by a model
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
Plaintiffs therefore *530 seek a TRO prohibiting their removal and the removal of their parents until a determination is made about whether and to what extent they may assert their individual asylum rights.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order
Motion decided Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
For the reasons set out above, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order as follows:
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order
Disposition Granted in the applicant's favor The principal motion was granted in full: summary judgment for either side, an injunction or TRO, a writ or order to act, fees. A motion to dismiss granted in full counts as Dismissed; a transfer is listed apart. Read by a model
For the reasons set out above, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order as follows:
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
For the reasons set out above, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order as follows:
The other claims Relief ordered Read by a model
the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order
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 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.