(HC) J.A.C.P. v. Wofford(HC) J.A.C.P. v. Wofford
The matter was referred to the undersigned for the preparation of findings and recommendations. (Doc. 29). For the reasons that follow, the undersigned will recommend that this motion be denied.
I. BACKGROUND
The parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history of this case, whiсh the Court briefly summarizes. On September 18, 2025, Petitioner was seized by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE“), a division of the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS“).
On April 21, 2026, Petitioner filed a motion for attorney‘s fees and costs seeking $3,328.96 for Counsel‘s work on the successful habeas petition. (Doc. 23). The basis for Petitioner‘s motion is the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA“), which provides for the award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs to the prevailing party “in any civil action” brought by or аgainst the United States.
On June 29, 2026, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in Palacios v. Liggins, No. 25-1223, 2026 WL 1855057, at *1 (U.S. June 29, 2026). The question presented is whether the “any civil action” language found in the EAJA includes an action sеeking a writ of habeas corpus to challenge civil immigration detention.
On August 12, 2026, the undersigned recommended that Petitioner‘s motion for fees be granted. (Doc. 26).
The following day, Respondents moved to stay Petitioner‘s motion for attorney‘s fees under the EAJA until 60 days after the Supreme Court‘s decision in Palacios v. Liggins.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
District courts have the “discretionary power to stay рroceedings.” Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1109 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). This power is “incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis, 299 U.S. at 254. The court may “find it is efficient for its own docket and the fairest course for the parties to enter a stay of an action before it, pending resolution of independent proceedings which bear upon the case.” Dependable Highway Exp., Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Levya v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F.2d 863–64 (9th Cir. 1979)). “This rule applies whether the separate proceedings are judicial, administrative, or arbitral in character, and does not require that the issues in such proceedings are necessarily controlling of the action before the court.” Leyva, 593 F.2d at 863–64.
In determining whether to grant a stay, “the competing interests which will be affected by the granting or refusal to grant a stay must be weighed.” CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962). “Among these competing interests are [1] the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay, [2] the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward, and [3] the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or сomplicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay.” Id. In addition, the “proponent of a stay bears the burden of establishing its need.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 708 (1997).
III. DISCUSSION
A. Factors One and Two: Damage and Hardship to Parties
With respect to the first two factors, damage and hardship to the parties, Respondents assert that “Petitioner is unlikely to be prejudiced by a delay of several months in the payment of any EAJA award, if that is the eventual outcome of the case.” (Doc. 27). In opposition, Petitioner argues that Respondents’ view of the circumstances is too narrow. Petitioner emphasizes their interest in the prompt resolution of the attorney‘s fees motion, as “continued delay in adjudicating the fee motion imposes a real financial burden and deters future counsel from taking on similar immigration habeas cases.” (Doc. 28 at 4).
If there is “even a fair possibility” of harm to the opposing party, the moving party “must make out a clear case of hardship or inequity in being required to go forward.” Landis, 299 U.S. at 255. Here, the undersigned agrees with Petitioner that Respondents have not identified the existence of any hardship or inequity in their being required to go forward in responding to the pending findings and recommendations on the attorney‘s fees motion. Nor is the undersigned рersuaded by Respondents’ conclusory contention that Petitioner will not suffer any prejudice if the motion to stay is granted. Palacios v. Liggins has not been briefed or calendared for argument,
B. Factor Three: The Orderly Course of Justice
Turning to the third factor, Respondents argue that Palacios v. Liggins may be dispоsitive of the pending fees motion in this case because the Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari as to the issue of whether the “any civil action” language found in the EAJA includes an action seeking a writ of habeas corpus to challenge civil immigration detention. See Palacios v. Liggins, No. 25-1223, 2026 WL 1855057 (U.S. June 29, 2026). Thus, according to Respondents, staying the fees motion will “promote[ ] judicial efficiency and conserve[ ] judicial resources.” (Doc. 27 at 2). In response, Petitioner contends that “[t]he controlling law in this Circuit favors Petitioner‘s fee recovеry, and this Court is able to adjudicate the motion under existing precedent.” (Doc. 28 at 4).
“In applying the third factor, courts find ‘considerations of judicial economy are highly relеvant.‘” Pac. Coast Fed‘n of Fishermen‘s Assns. v. Raimondo, No. 120CV00426DADEPG, 2022 WL 789122, at *69 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2022) (quoting Gustavson v. Mars, Inc., No. 13-cv-04537-LHK, 2014 WL 6986421, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2014)). Here, the Court agrees with Respondents that a decision in Palacios v. Liggins is likely to provide guidance on the availability of attorney‘s fees under the EAJA. Notwithstanding, as Petitioner points out, that “the Ninth Circuit has not definitively foreclosed EAJA fees in immigration habeas cases” (Doc 28 at 4). On balance, the undersigned finds that it would be slightly in the intеrest of judicial economy to hold the motion for attorney‘s fees in abeyance pending the decision in Palacios v. Liggins.
* * *
To summarize, the undersigned finds that there is a risk of some prejudice to Petitioner if the Court stays the motion for attorney‘s fees pending the Supreme Court‘s decision in Palacios v. Liggins. On the other hand, considerations of judicial economy weigh slightly in favor of а stay, because the decision could inform the analysis in the pending motion. Because “[a] district court‘s concern for . . . judicial efficiency, standing alone is not necessarily a sufficient ground to
IV. CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Respondents’ motion to stay Petitioner‘s motion for fees, (Doc. 27), be DENIED.
This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of
Dated: August 28, 2026
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE