John Crawford v. United States, 18-1956

Plaintiff (John Crawford) challenged his Army National Guard separation and ABCMR’s handling of his fitness determination and requested relief in the Court of Federal Claims.
Before answering or producing the administrative record, the government moved to remand the case to the ABCMR, stating the remand was in the interests of justice and not an admission of error.
The court granted the voluntary remand on May 1, 2019, retaining jurisdiction, to allow the ABCMR to consider new evidence (Dr. O’Donnell’s findings) and to create a fuller administrative record.
The ABCMR later granted plaintiff relief on December 30, 2019; the parties then agreed the matter was resolved and plaintiff moved to dismiss the case with prejudice (granted March 26, 2021).
Plaintiff sought EAJA attorneys’ fees and costs, arguing he was a "prevailing party" because the remand was necessitated by agency error; the government argued the remand was for judicial efficiency and not a concession of error.
The court denied the EAJA motion, holding plaintiff was not a prevailing party because the remand was not predicated on agency error and there was no concession or judicial finding of error at the time of remand.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Crawford a "prevailing party" under the EAJA after the court-ordered remand?	Remand resulted from agency errors; Crawford later prevailed at the ABCMR, so he is prevailing.	Remand was voluntary for judicial economy and consideration of new evidence, not an admission of error; thus no prevailing-party status.	Denied. Remand was for new evidence and judicial efficiency; no prevailing-party status under EAJA.
Was the remand predicated on agency error or a government concession?	Government implicitly conceded the ABCMR lacked a proper fitness finding, necessitating remand.	Government expressly disclaimed conceding error and sought remand to reconsider without confessing error (citing SKF).	Remand was not based on an admission of error; no record support of concession.
Does a later favorable agency decision retroactively make the remand an agency-error remand for EAJA purposes?	The ABCMR’s later grant of relief shows agency error and justifies fees.	Subsequent administrative success does not change the basis for the earlier judicial remand.	No. A later administrative win does not establish that the court’s remand was based on agency error.

Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dep’t of Health & Hum. Res., 532 U.S. 598 (establishes that a "prevailing party" must be awarded some judicial relief)
Davis v. Nicholson, 475 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (applies Buckhannon to EAJA remand cases; default rule that remands are not agency-error remands absent finding or concession)
Ward v. United States Postal Serv., 672 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (remands for new evidence or judicial economy do not confer prevailing-party status)
Former Emps. of Motorola Ceramic Prods. v. United States, 336 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (tests for when court-to-agency remands confer prevailing-party status)
SKF USA Inc. v. United States, 254 F.3d 1022 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (agency may request remand to reconsider without confessing error)
Comm’r, Immigr. & Naturalization Serv. v. Jean, 496 U.S. 154 (EAJA prerequisites and standards)
Ardestani v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 502 U.S. 129 (EAJA construed narrowly as waiver of sovereign immunity)
Ruckelshaus v. Sierra Club, 463 U.S. 680 (general rule that plaintiffs may not recover fees from the United States absent statute)