Summary
rejecting plaintiffs' argument for legal fees under the EAJA that their mandamus action, although dismissed, caused the INS to act on their application
Summary of this case from Choudhury v. BarnhartOpinion
01 Civ. 0439 (LAK)
March 4, 2002
ORDER
By order dated January 31, 2002, the Court dismissed this action, which had sought relief in the nature of mandamus to compel the Immigration and Naturalization Service ("INS") to act on an application for adjustment of status, as moot. Plaintiffs now move for an award of attorneys fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (the "EAJA").
The EAJA, broadly speaking, requires an award of attorneys fees "to a prevailing party other than the United States" in any civil action brought by or against the United States "unless the court finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust." Id. § 2412(d)(1)(A). Plaintiffs argue that they are entitled to an award on the ground that their action, although dismissed, caused the INS to act on the application at issue. In other words, they claim that the lawsuit was a catalyst that led to their obtaining the relief they sought through administrative action.
In Buckhannon Board and Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources, 121 S.Ct. 1835 (2001), the Supreme Court rejected the catalyst theory, holding that "a `prevailing party' is one who has been awarded some relief by the court . . ." Id. at 1839. While the case was decided under the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq., and the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., the opinion leaves no doubt at all that it governs the interpretation of the broad array of similarly worded federal statutes. See id. at 1839 n. 4.
In this case, plaintiffs obtained no relief from the Court. Accordingly, they are not entitled to fees. Motion denied.
SO ORDERED.