Haji S. v. Whitaker
- Paul Magnuson
- 0:18-cv-03493
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Haji S. v. Barr, Judge Magnuson denied Haji S.’s attorney-fee motion after finding the government’s detention position substantially justified.
Haji S. was not awarded the requested attorney’s fees and costs; the government defendants were not ordered to pay them.
What happened
In Haji S. v. Barr, the court had earlier granted part of Haji S.’s petition challenging his immigration detention and ordered a bond hearing. An Immigration Judge then released him on bond.
Haji S. asked the government to pay $5,163.75 in attorney’s fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The government argued that its position supporting continued detention under federal law was substantially justified.
Judge Paul A. Magnuson ruled that existing law gave the government a reasonable basis for advocating continued detention, so he denied Haji S.’s motion for attorney’s fees.
The detailed version
- Haji S. v. Whitaker · No. 0:18-cv-03493
- Paul Magnuson
- Jan. 13, 2020
Background
This opinion concerns Haji S.’s motion for attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, a federal law that can require the government to reimburse a successful party’s reasonable legal fees and expenses. In an earlier order, the court granted in part Haji S.’s petition for a court review of his detention and ordered an Immigration Judge to hold a bond hearing within 30 days. The Immigration Judge released Haji S. on bond.
Haji S. requested $5,163.75, representing 25 hours and six minutes of attorney time, fees, and expenses. The defendants argued that their position supporting continued detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) was substantially justified.
Legal Standard
The Equal Access to Justice Act generally allows a prevailing party to recover attorney’s fees and other expenses from the United States. Fees are unavailable when the government’s position was substantially justified or when special circumstances would make an award unjust. A position is substantially justified when it has a reasonable basis in law and fact. The government bears the burden of showing substantial justification.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that federal law requires detention of certain removable noncitizens during removal proceedings, but detention is not unlimited. The court also stated that existing law did not establish a bright-line rule making a particular detention length automatically unreasonable. Based on existing law, including the Supreme Court’s decision in Demore v. Kim, the court concluded that the government was justified in advocating continued detention under § 1226(c).
Disposition
Judge Paul A. Magnuson denied Haji S.’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees. The order did not award the requested $5,163.75.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.