Summary
The Fifth Circuit held that the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) does not waive sovereign immunity for attorney's fees in habeas corpus proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, because habeas actions are hybrid—neither purely civil nor criminal—and the EAJA unambiguously applies only to "civil actions." Affirming the denial of fees to successful immigration detainees, the court joined the Fourth and Tenth Circuits, rejecting contrary Second and Ninth Circuit precedent, and did not reach the issue of substantial justification.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) waives sovereign immunity for an award of attorney's fees in habeas corpus proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
Holdings
- Habeas corpus proceedings are hybrid actions, not purely civil actions, and therefore the EAJA does not authorize attorney's fees for successful § 2241 petitions.
Key quotations
“habeas proceedings, though technically civil, are in reality hybrid cases whose nature is not adequately captured by the phrase 'civil action'” (at 5)
“a habeas corpus proceeding is neither a wholly criminal nor a wholly civil action, but rather a hybrid action that is unique, a category unto itself” (at 6)
“Except as otherwise specifically provided by statute, a court shall award to a prevailing party other than the United States fees and other expenses . . . incurred by that party in any civil action (other than cases sounding in tort), including proceedings for judicial review of agency action, brought by or against the United States in any court having jurisdiction of that action, unless the court finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust.” (at 4-5)
Factual background
Both appellants are Venezuelan citizens who were admitted as nonimmigrant visitors and overstayed. Gomez Barco was convicted of crimes and sentenced to 20 months and 15 days; Castro Balza was convicted of conspiracy to defraud the United States and sentenced to 18 months. After serving their sentences, DHS charged them with removability and took them into custody. Immigration judges ordered them removed to Venezuela. DHS obtained travel documents and indicated removal was likely in the foreseeable future. Both filed habeas petitions challenging their continued detention, which were granted.
Procedural history
Both appellants filed petitions for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging their immigration detention. The district courts granted the petitions. Appellants then moved for attorney's fees under the EAJA. The magistrate judges recommended denial because the EAJA does not apply to § 2241 actions. The district courts denied fees on alternate grounds, finding the government's position substantially justified. Appellants appealed.