835 F.3d 1048
9th Cir.2016Background
- Dr. Rahinah Ibrahim sued federal officials after being (improperly) placed in government terrorism databases (including the No‑Fly List); after appeals and a bench trial the district court found she was improperly placed and ordered remedial relief.
- Ibrahim sought $3.63 million in market‑rate attorney’s fees and ~$294,000 in expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA); the district court found her a prevailing party but limited recoverable fees and awarded $419,987.36 in fees and $34,768.71 in costs.
- The district court: (a) made several discrete substantial‑justification determinations disallowing fees for specific issues/stages; (b) declined to find government bad faith (so generally applied EAJA’s $125/hr cap); (c) applied Hensley reductions, denying fees for First Amendment and equal‑protection claims as unrelated; and (d) struck Ibrahim’s objections to a special master’s expenses report for exceeding page limits.
- Ibrahim appealed, arguing (1) the court should have found government bad faith to permit market rates; (2) the district court erred by making multiple stage‑specific substantial‑justification findings instead of a single case‑wide inquiry; (3) the Hensley relatedness and reasonableness reductions were incorrect; and (4) striking objections to the special master was improper.
- The panel affirmed some rulings (bad faith findings review, Hensley relatedness conclusions, striking objections) but reversed the district court’s multiple substantial‑justification determinations, vacated fee disallowances tied to that error, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether government acted in bad faith so market rates (above EAJA cap) should apply | Ibrahim: government litigated and defended known wrongful conduct; bad faith in refusing to fully correct errors and invoking privileges | Government: defenses and privilege assertions were colorable; no evidence of frivolous or harassing conduct | Affirmed district court — no clear error in finding no bad faith; market‑rate enhancement denied except for limited upward departure already applied |
| Whether EAJA substantial‑justification must be assessed stage‑by‑stage or once for the case as a whole | Ibrahim: district court’s piecemeal reductions were improper; EAJA requires holistic analysis | Government: could defend discrete positions as substantially justified | Reversed: Supreme Court’s Jean requires a single, case‑wide substantial‑justification inquiry; district court erred by atomizing determinations |
| Application of Hensley relatedness and overall reasonableness reductions | Ibrahim: obtained excellent results and unsuccessful claims were related, so full fee award warranted | Government: unsuccessful First Amendment and equal‑protection claims were legally/factually distinct; reductions appropriate | Affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion finding First Amendment and equal‑protection claims unrelated to procedural due process; Hensley reductions permissible; district court must still explain lodestar adjustments on remand |
| Whether district court abused discretion by striking Ibrahim’s objections to special master’s expenses report (page‑limit violation) | Ibrahim: special master filed multiple reports, so multiple 10‑page objections were reasonable; page limit itself unreasonable | Government: district court’s order limited total objections to ten pages; Ibrahim disregarded order | Affirmed: district court did not clearly err or abuse discretion in striking late/oversized objections and enforcing page limits |
Key Cases Cited
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (fee‑reasonableness framework under fee‑shifting statutes)
- Commissioner, INS v. Jean, 496 U.S. 154 (EAJA substantial‑justification is a one‑time case‑wide inquiry)
- Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552 (definition of “substantially justified” — reasonable to satisfy a person)
- Rodriguez v. United States, 542 F.3d 704 (9th Cir. 2008) (EAJA: bad faith permits market‑rate awards)
- Brown v. Sullivan, 916 F.2d 492 (9th Cir. 1990) (market‑rate recovery where bad faith found)
- Schwarz v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 73 F.3d 895 (9th Cir. 1995) (lodestar/Hensley application in EAJA context)
- Webb v. Sloan, 330 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir. 2003) (Hensley relatedness — common core of facts/legal theories)
- Corbin v. Apfel, 149 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 1998) (social‑security context allowing stage‑specific EAJA awards)