847 F. Supp. 2d 1
D.D.C.2012Background
- Poett, a USDA chemist, requested access to select agents and toxins and was denied as a 'restricted person' based on suspected involvement with a terrorist organization.
- The district court found Defendants reasonably suspected knowing involvement, not merely affiliation, and remanded for further explanation of the grounds for denial.
- Defendants later advised the court they no longer suspected Poett of knowing involvement, and the court dismissed the case subject to Poett’s motion for attorney’s fees.
- Poett filed objections to the magistrate judge’s order denying attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA).
- Magistrate Judge Robinson concluded Poett was not a prevailing party, and the district court affirmed that conclusion, denying fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the remand with a deadline suffices as judicial imprimatur | Poett contends remand with a deadline created prevailing party status. | Poett argues no stronger judicial imprimatur was required; court-imposed guidance was insufficient. | Remand with a mere deadline is insufficient to make Poett a prevailing party. |
| Whether Poett prevailed on remand overall | Poett ultimately succeeded upon remand, yielding prevailing party status. | Remand did not confer substantive relief in Poett's favor; no prevailing party status. | Poett was not a prevailing party. |
| Whether Defendants’ conduct was substantially justified | Argues the initial position was substantially justified and should yield fees. | Maintains the initial position was not merely justified or the remand inadequate to confer prevailing status. | Court did not reach this issue because Poett was not a prevailing party. |
Key Cases Cited
- Massachusetts Fair Share v. Law Enforcement Assistance Admin., 776 F.2d 1066 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (remand with proper judicial imprimatur can confer prevailing party status)
- Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides v. EPA, 421 F. Supp. 2d 123 (D.D.C. 2006) (summary judgment followed by remand for reconsideration can create prevailing party status)
- Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Reilly, 1 F.3d 1254 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (remand relief itself can constitute prevailing party relief when it grants the requested remedy)
- Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598 (U.S. 2001) (voluntary change in conduct lacks judicial imprimatur absent court order)
- Lake Pilots Ass’n, Inc. v. U. S. Coast Guard, 310 F. Supp. 2d 333 (D.D.C. 2004) (court remand with information gathering does not alter legal relationship absent relief)
- Michigan v. EPA, 254 F.3d 1087 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (remand and relief considerations in determining prevailing party status)