Melvin Rojas Dubon v. Pamela Bondi, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
Respondents moved to hold in abeyance Petitioner's motion for attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) pending the Supreme Court's decision in Montoya Palacios v. Liggins. The Court denied the motion, citing binding Ninth Circuit precedent that supports EAJA fees in habeas cases and the significant delay in the Supreme Court's decision.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Hold in Abeyance Denied“the Court DENIES the request to hold the motion for attorney’s fees in abeyance.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the Ninth Circuit has established precedent (In re Hill, Nadarajah) allowing EAJA fees in habeas cases. While the Supreme Court case Montoya Palacios presents a potential conflict, the district court is bound by Ninth Circuit precedent until the Supreme Court rules otherwise. Furthermore, the court noted the practical delay (decision not expected until summer 2027), making an indefinite hold unreasonable. The decision follows from the law and the record recited. |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise but legally sound. It correctly applies the principle that district courts must follow binding circuit precedent (Ninth Circuit) even when a Supreme Court case is pending, especially when the circuit precedent is clear and the Supreme Court decision is distant. The court addresses the specific argument about the circuit split by noting the specific Ninth Circuit authority that governs this district.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MELVIN ROJAS DUBON, Case No.: 3:26-cv-117-CAB-BLM 12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 13 v. HOLD IN ABEYANCE 14 PAMELA BONDI, et al., [Doc. No. 18] 15 Respondents. 16 17 Respondents have filed an ex parte motion to hold the motion for attorney’s fees 18 under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”) in abeyance pending the Supreme Court’s 19 decision in Montoya Palacios v. Liggins, No. 25-1223. [Doc. No. 18.] Petitioner opposes. 20 [Doc. No. 19.] For the following reasons, the Court DENIES the motion. 21 Montoya Palacios presents the question of whether a habeas petition is “any civil 22 action” under the EAJA and therefore eligible for attorney’s fees. Merits briefing is 23 currently in progress, with the government’s brief due on October 23, 2026. Respondents 24 acknowledge that (1) there is a circuit split on this issue and (2) the Ninth Circuit has 25 permitted EAJA fees following a successful habeas petition in In re Hill, 775 F.2d 1037 26 (9th Cir. 1985), though Respondents argue Hill should be confined to its facts. [Doc. No. 27 28 1 at 2 n.1.] See also Nadarajah v. Holder, 569 F.3d 906 (9th Cir. 2009) (awarding 2 ||$156,778.68 to habeas petitioner’s counsel under the EAJA). 3 Given the Ninth Circuit cases awarding attorney’s fees under the EAJA and that a 4 ||decision in Montoya Palacios may not be issued until the summer of 2027, the Court 5 || DENIES the request to hold the motion for attorney’s fees in abeyance. [Doc. No. 18.] 6 || Respondents shall respond to the motion for attorney’s fees by August 10, 2026. Petitioner 7 ||shall reply by August 17, 2026. 8 Itis SO ORDERED. 9 || Dated: August 5, 2026 I] Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivenge 12 United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28