Martinez v. William P. Joyce
- George Daniels
- 1:25-cv-10376
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Jose Alberto Martinez v. William P. Joyce, Judge Moses granted a stay of Martinez’s attorney-fee motion until the Supreme Court decides Palacios.
Jose Alberto Martinez’s pending request for attorney’s fees, the government’s opposition to that request, and the parties’ deadlines in the fee proceeding are paused until the Supreme Court decides Palacios.
What happened
Jose Alberto Martinez v. William P. Joyce concerns Martinez’s request for attorney’s fees after he successfully challenged his immigration detention and was released. The government opposed the request.
The Supreme Court agreed to decide whether the Equal Access to Justice Act covers fees for a lawsuit challenging civil immigration detention. Because that decision could affect Martinez’s fee request, the government asked to pause the case, and Martinez agreed.
Judge Moses granted the stay pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Palacios. The parties must file a joint letter within seven days after that decision explaining its effect, if any, on Martinez’s fee motion.
The detailed version
- Martinez v. William P. Joyce · No. 1:25-cv-10376
- George Daniels
- July 16, 2026
Background
Jose Alberto Martinez filed a petition challenging his detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). The government argued that he was detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), which it said required mandatory detention. The district judge granted Martinez’s petition on January 8, 2026, ruled that his detention was under § 1226(a), and ordered his immediate release. Martinez was released that day.
Martinez then sought attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, requesting $50,635 or, alternatively, $24,430.90 calculated at the statutory rate. The government opposed the request, arguing in part that its position in the litigation was substantially justified and that the requested fees were too high. The government also preserved for appeal whether a habeas petition qualifies as a “civil action” for purposes of the fee statute.
Reason for the Stay
The Supreme Court granted review in Palacios v. Liggins. The question presented there is whether the Equal Access to Justice Act’s reference to “any civil action” includes an action seeking a writ of habeas corpus to challenge civil immigration detention. Judge Moses determined that the Supreme Court’s decision could resolve or significantly simplify Martinez’s fee motion.
Ruling
Judge Moses granted the government’s motion to stay. The action is stayed pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Palacios. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the government’s stay motion. Within seven days after the Supreme Court issues its decision, the parties must file a joint letter addressing the decision’s effect, if any, on Martinez’s fee motion.
This order does not decide whether Martinez is entitled to fees or the amount of any fee award.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.