govinfo:USCOURTS-mnd-0_26-cv-00903-1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA 
 
 
Jafet L.C., 
 
   Petitioner, 
 
v. 
 
Todd Blanche, Acting Attorney General
1; 
Markwayne Mullin, Secretary, U.S. 
Department of Homeland Security; 
Todd M. Lyons, Acting Director of 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement; 
and David Easterwood, Acting Director, 
St. Paul Field Office Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement, 
 
   R e s p o n d e n t s .  
Civil No. 26-903 (DWF/EMB) 
 
 
 
 
MEMORANDUM 
OPINION AND ORDER 
 
 
INTRODUCTION 
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Jafet L.C.’s motion for attorney fees 
pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”).  (Doc. No. 11.)   Respondents 
submitted a response in which they agree that Petitioner is a prevailing party and take no 
position on the remainder of the fee request.  (Doc. No. 19.)  For the reasons set forth 
below, the Court grants the motion and awards attorneys’ fees to Petitioner’s counsel in 
the amount of $3,532.95.   
 
1  Todd Blanche and Markwayne Mullin are automatically, and respectively, 
substituted in as the Acting Attorney General and the Secretary, U.S. Department of 
Homeland Security.  The Clerk of Court is directed to replace Pamela Bondi and Kristi 
Noem with Todd Blanche and Markwayne Mullin, respectively, on the docket. 
CASE 0:26-cv-00903-DWF-EMB     Doc. 20     Filed 05/15/26     Page 1 of 5
2 
BACKGROUND 
Petitioner, a citizen of Mexico and a resident of Brooklyn Park, Minnesota, has 
lived in the United States for nearly 25 years.  (Doc. No. 1 ¶¶ 2, 11, 18.)  He was detained 
by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) on January 30, 2026.  (Id. ¶¶ 3, 
21.)  Following his detention, Petitioner filed this habeas action.  In response to 
Petitioner’s habeas action, Respondents argued that Petitioner’s detention was proper 
under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).2  The Court granted the Petition and ordered Petitioner’s 
release, finding that Petitioner was unlawfully detained because there was no evidence 
that Respondents had a warrant, which is “a necessary condition to justify discretionary 
detention under section 1226(a).”  (Doc. No. 8 at 4 (citation omitted).)   
Petitioner now moves for an award of attorney fees under the EAJA in the amount 
of $3,532.95.  (Doc. No. 11.)  Petitioner retained an attorney with Mid-Minnesota Legal 
Aid (“MMLA”) to represent him pro bono and assigned his attorney fee award under the 
EAJA to his attorney.  (Doc. No. 13 ¶¶ 4, 6.)  Petitioner has a net worth of under 
$2,000,000.  (Id. ¶ 2.) 
DISCUSSION 
The EAJA provides that a party who prevails in a civil action against the United 
States—including a habeas action—must be awarded fees and other expenses “unless the 
 
2  Unlike many other habeas cases filed in this district, this case did not center on the 
decisive question of whether a noncitizen who had entered the United States without 
inspection is subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).   
CASE 0:26-cv-00903-DWF-EMB     Doc. 20     Filed 05/15/26     Page 2 of 5
3 
court finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified . . . .”  
28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A).   
Here, Petitioner is the prevailing party.  The Court granted his petition and entered 
judgment, ordering, among other things, Petitioner’s immediate release.  (Doc. No. 8.)  In 
their response, Respondents agree that Petitioner is a prevailing party.  (Doc. No. 19.) 
The Court turns to the question of whether the government’s position was 
“substantially justified.”  28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(B).  A “substantially justified” position 
“need not be correct” so long as it has “a reasonable basis in law and fact.”  Bah v. 
Cangemi, 548 F.3d 680, 683-84 (8th Cir. 2008) (quoting Pierce v. Underwood, 
487 U.S. 552, 566 n.2 (1988)).  The government bears the burden of proving that its 
position—in this case, its position that Petitioner’s detention was proper under 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1226(a)—was substantially justified.  See Friends of the Boundary Waters 
Wilderness v. Thomas, 53 F.3d 881, 885 (8th Cir. 1995).  Notably, Respondents take no 
position on the substantial-justification question.  (Doc. No. 19.)  Having made no 
argument, Respondents have not met their burden of proving that its position was 
substantially justified.  The Court finds that Petitioner is entitled to fees. 
Having determined that Petitioner is entitled to an award of fees, the Court turns to 
the amount.  The EAJA caps reasonable fees at $125 per hour, but a court can adjust the 
amount to account for cost of living and other special factors.  28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A).  
The statute specifically considers “the limited availability of qualified attorneys for the 
proceedings involved” as justification for a higher award.  Id.  Petitioner’s counsel 
requests $3,532.95 for 13.53 hours of work.  (Doc. No. 14-1.)  Respondents do not 
CASE 0:26-cv-00903-DWF-EMB     Doc. 20     Filed 05/15/26     Page 3 of 5
4 
contest the rates used or the number of hours submitted.  The Court finds both 
reasonable.  In addition, the Court finds that Petitioner is entitled to a cost-of-living 
adjustment using the consumer price index for urban consumers (“CPI-U”).  The CPI is 
an appropriate method of calculating increased cost of living.  See Hickey v. Secretary of 
HHS, 923 F.2d 585, 586 (8th Cir. 1991).  The CPI-U index level in January 2026, the 
month Petitioner became a prevailing party, was 325.252.  Consumer Price Index – 
January 2026, U.S. Bureau of Lab. Stat. (Feb. 13, 2026), 
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/cpi_02132026.htm.  Using a formula adopted 
in Greenhill v. United States, 96 Fed. Cl. 771, 784 (2011), the adjusted rate is $261.12 
($125 × 325.252 ÷ 155.7).3  Petitioner’s legal team spent 13.53 hours of attorney time on 
Petitioner’s habeas matter.  Using the adjusted rate, Petitioner’s counsel is entitled to an 
award of $3,532.95. 
ORDER 
Based on the foregoing and the record in this case, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED 
that: 
1. Petitioner’s motion for attorney fees (Doc. No. [11]) is GRANTED. 
2. Petitioner’s counsel is awarded $3,532.95 in attorney fees. 
 
3  In Greenhill, the court explained:  “To determine a [cost-of-living adjustment], the 
Court multiplies the base EAJA rate of $125 by the CPI-U for the month the time was 
billed.  This product is then divided by 155.7, the CPI-U in March 1996 when the 
statutory cap was last amended.”  96 Fed. Cl. at 784 (citation omitted). 
CASE 0:26-cv-00903-DWF-EMB     Doc. 20     Filed 05/15/26     Page 4 of 5
5 
3. The Clerk of Court shall replace Pamela Bondi and Kristi Noem with Todd 
Blanche and Markwayne Mullin, respectively, on the docket. 
 
Dated:  May 15, 2026   s/Donovan W. Frank  
DONOVAN W. FRANK 
United States District Judge 
CASE 0:26-cv-00903-DWF-EMB     Doc. 20     Filed 05/15/26     Page 5 of 5

Passage view · GavelSight