Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
A.R. C.M., a former federal immigration detainee represented by counsel, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The court granted a temporary restraining order on December 31, 2025, and ordered his immediate release. After merits briefing, it enjoined respondents from re-arresting him without compliance with constitutional protections. On May 1, 2026, the court granted the writ and entered judgment for petitioner. He moved for attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act on July 30, 2026, and the motion was referred to the magistrate judge the next day.
Respondents opposed the fee motion and petitioner replied. They sought to hold the matter in abeyance pending the Supreme Court's resolution of Montoya Palacios v. Liggins, argued that habeas proceedings are not civil actions eligible for EAJA fees, and contended that their position concerning mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) had a reasonable basis in law and fact. They did not dispute that petitioner prevailed, challenge the requested amount, or invoke the special-circumstances exception.
The Court’s Holding
United States Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson recommended denying a stay and granting the fee motion in part. Applying the Lockyer factors, he found that delay would postpone compensation for counsel and could chill representation of immigration habeas petitioners, while respondents identified no hardship from deciding the motion and finality favored resolution. He also concluded that the EAJA applies to immigration-detention habeas proceedings. Relying on the statute's coverage of any civil action other than cases sounding in tort, Schlanger's description of habeas as technically civil, Ninth Circuit authority, and recent Third and Tenth Circuit decisions, he rejected respondents' categorical eligibility argument.
Petitioner qualified as the prevailing party because litigation produced his release, a preliminary injunction against unlawful re-detention, and a writ permanently enjoining unconstitutional re-detention. The government nevertheless failed to carry its substantial-justification burden. Its opposition addressed its litigation position but not the agency conduct underlying the case: detention of someone whom the Department of Homeland Security had released and who was complying with release conditions, his arrest when he reported to ICE as instructed, and the absence of a bond hearing for more than seven months. It also did not address the due process basis for relief. The magistrate judge further cited appellate authority placing people released into the United States under discretionary detention authority in § 1226 rather than mandatory authority in § 1225(b), while taking only advisory notice of one ruling whose mandate had not issued.
The requested $600 hourly rate was not approved. The magistrate judge found no rare and exceptional circumstances or limited availability of qualified attorneys justifying an enhancement, given the number of immigration habeas cases and extensive case law. Using statutory maximum attorney rates and the requested paralegal rate, he found 25.72 attorney hours and 2.77 paralegal hours reasonable and recommended $7,063.09. The award would be payable to petitioner, with direct payment to counsel if the Treasury Department determines that petitioner owes no federal debt. These are recommendations to the assigned district judge, not a final fee judgment; written objections are due within fourteen days of service, with responses due within fourteen days after service of objections.
Key Takeaways
- The recommendation treats immigration-detention habeas proceedings as civil actions eligible for attorney's fees under the EAJA.
- A fee defense based only on the government's litigation position did not address whether the detention, arrest, and prolonged denial of a bond hearing were substantially justified.
- The requested $600 hourly attorney rate was rejected because the case did not present the rare and exceptional circumstances required for an enhanced EAJA rate.
- The recommended award is $7,063.09 for 25.72 attorney hours and 2.77 paralegal hours, subject to district-judge review and the stated payment procedure.
Why It Matters
The recommendation connects fee eligibility to the relief actually obtained in immigration habeas litigation and emphasizes that substantial justification encompasses the agency action underlying the suit, not merely the arguments later made in court. It also illustrates how statutory rate limits and the demanding enhancement standard can substantially reduce a requested hourly rate even when the prevailing-party and reasonableness requirements are satisfied.
The document leaves the ultimate fee award with the assigned district judge. It does not itself order a final payment, and its objection procedure warns that failure to file timely objections may waive the right to appeal the district court's order.