Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Alabama

Onenese v. Barr

Northern District of AlabamaKaron O BowdreDecided March 13, 2020No. 4:19-cv-01643

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 ICE Read by a model
He further asserts that ICE’s actions are undermining his ability to be released on parole and states that the court should compel ICE to exercise its discretion and release him from custody.
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
Accordingly, the court GRANTS the Respondent’s motion to dismiss and DISMISSES this action as duplicative.
Motion decided Other motion to dismiss Read by a model
Accordingly, the court GRANTS the Respondent’s motion to dismiss and DISMISSES this action as duplicative.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Accordingly, the court GRANTS the Respondent’s motion to dismiss and DISMISSES this action as duplicative.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Accordingly, the court GRANTS the Respondent’s motion to dismiss and DISMISSES this action as duplicative.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Accordingly, the court GRANTS the Respondent’s motion to dismiss and DISMISSES this action as duplicative.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Accordingly, the court GRANTS the Respondent’s motion to dismiss and DISMISSES this action as duplicative.
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. 4:19-cv-01643
Filed
October 8, 2019
Ended
March 13, 2020
Suit's filing to its end
157 days
How it ended
Dismissed, ground not recorded
From the record
idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why.

Supreme Court and Eleventh 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.