Rodriguez v. Pompeo

Background

Rodriguez brought the action under 8 U.S.C. § 1503(a), seeking a declaration that he is a U.S. citizen and an injunction requiring the Department of State to issue him a passport. The Department had denied or closed his three passport applications because it determined that he had not provided enough evidence of U.S. citizenship and did not submit additional documents requested during the application process.

After Rodriguez filed the lawsuit, he disclosed additional documents, including a baptismal certificate and a Mexican registration of birth. The Department represented that, after reviewing those documents, it determined that Rodriguez had met his burden to prove U.S. citizenship. The parties then stayed the case for settlement discussions and filed a stipulation dismissing Rodriguez’s claims with prejudice. The court dismissed the claims with prejudice but retained jurisdiction over Rodriguez’s request for attorney’s fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act, or EAJA.

Issue

The issue was whether Rodriguez qualified as a “prevailing party” entitled to attorney’s fees and costs under the EAJA. The Department also argued that its position had been substantially justified and that the requested fees were unreasonable.

Court’s reasoning

The court explained that a prevailing party must obtain actual judicial relief that materially changes the legal relationship between the parties and directly benefits the plaintiff. A defendant’s voluntary change in conduct, even if it achieves what the plaintiff sought, is not enough without a court-ordered change, such as a judgment or consent decree providing relief.

The court rejected Rodriguez’s argument that the orders staying the case for settlement discussions functioned as a court-ordered remand. Those orders only granted the parties’ joint requests to pause the proceedings and did not order the Department to reconsider its passport decisions.

The court also rejected Rodriguez’s argument that the judgment following the settlement made him a prevailing party. Although the case was dismissed with prejudice, the judgment did not refer to the settlement agreement, require the Department to issue Rodriguez a passport, declare that he was a U.S. citizen, or provide any other relief to him. The Department’s agreement that Rodriguez was entitled to a passport resulted from its voluntary review of the additional documents, not from judicial relief.

The court further stated that, even if Rodriguez had been a prevailing party, the Department’s positions were substantially justified. The Department had repeatedly told Rodriguez that it needed additional evidence of citizenship, and he did not provide the requested documentation during the application process. The court also found substantially justified the Department’s position that the five-year limitations period under § 1503(a) began after the denial of Rodriguez’s first application rather than his third application.

Disposition

The court DENIED Rodriguez’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs. The order addressed the fee request and did not decide the underlying merits of Rodriguez’s citizenship or passport claims.