Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Maryland

Martinez v. Barr

District of MarylandPaula XinisDecided September 7, 2021No. 8:20-cv-00977

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 Department of State Read by a model
Plaintiffs ask this Court to declare that the 2004 removal order is no longer “legally valid,” and urge this Court to issue a writ of mandamus to prevent the U.S. Consulate in Mexico from relying on said order to deny Espinoza’s visa application.
Form or filing DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Although Espinoza frames the issue for resolution as the government’s denial of her immigrant visa application in 2019, her claims are “nothing more than indirect attacks” on the 2004 expedited removal order.
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
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) is GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) is GRANTED.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss or alternatively for summary judgment.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) is GRANTED.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) is GRANTED.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) is GRANTED.
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
Nationality Mexico Read by a model
On August 21, 2004, Plaintiff Espinoza,1 a Mexican citizen, tried to cross into the United States through the Otay Mesa checkpoint in San Diego, California.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 8:20-cv-00977
Filed
April 16, 2020
Ended
September 7, 2021
Suit's filing to its end
509 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.

Supreme Court and Fourth 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.