Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of California

(HC) Estrada Juarez v. Noem

Eastern District of CaliforniaDena M. CogginsDecided March 23, 2026No. 2:26-cv-00801

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
Respondents argue that because “Petitioner challenges [Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (“ICE”)] decision to execute her removal order despite USCIS’s contrary decision to not prioritize her removal,”
Form or filing None named Read by a model
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
Petitioner challenges her February 19, 2026, removal to Mexico and seeks an order requiring her immediate return to the United States with the same Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”) program protections provided to her before her removal.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Petitioner Maria de Jesus Estrada Juarez’s motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 2) is GRANTED
Motion decided Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
Petitioner Maria de Jesus Estrada Juarez’s motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 2) is GRANTED
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
Petitioner Maria de Jesus Estrada Juarez’s motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 2) is GRANTED
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
Petitioner Maria de Jesus Estrada Juarez’s motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 2) is GRANTED
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
Within seven (7) days of issuance of this order, Respondents shall facilitate Petitioner’s return to the United States;
The other claims Relief ordered Read by a model
Within seven (7) days of issuance of this order, Respondents shall facilitate Petitioner’s return to the United States;
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
Petitioner Maria de Jesus Estrada Juarez is a native and citizen of Mexico

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:26-cv-00801
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 15), deciding the motion (ECF 2)
Filed
March 10, 2026
Ended
October 5, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
209 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
voluntary dismissal 2026-10-05

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

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision, and the motion number is read from that entry's text. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

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.