Gahagan v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Filing
30
ORDER AND REASONS. It is ORDERED that Plaintiff's 28 Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs is DENIED. Signed by Judge Carl Barbier on 9/30/2014. (gec)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MICHAEL GAHAGAN
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO: 14-1268
U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION SERVICES
SECTION:
J(1)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a
Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs
(Rec. Doc. 28) filed by Plaintiff, Michael Gahagan ("Plaintiff"),
as well as an Opposition (Rec. Doc. 29) by Defendant, United States
Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS"). Having considered
the
motion,
the
parties’
submissions,
the
record,
and
the
applicable law, the Court finds, for the reasons expressed below,
that the motions should be DENIED.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff is an immigration attorney who sought the release of
immigration records pertaining to his client, Mr. Narinder Singh.
Plaintiff alleges that he filed a request pursuant to the Freedom
of Information Act (FOIA) with USCIS on May 2, 2014, requesting
particular documents and information, and that USCIS failed to
respond within the required twenty (20) business days. Plaintiff
then brought suit against USCIS in this Court seeking relief under
FOIA on June 2, 2014. On July 8, 2014, USCIS released documents in
1
response to Plaintiff's FOIA request totaling 264 pages in full and
eighty (80) pages in part, while redirecting thirty-three pages
(33) to the agency of Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE").
Plaintiff then filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that
the government failed to disclose information as required by FOIA.
On August 14, 2014, this Court issued an Order denying Plaintiff's
motion, upon a finding that USCIS did not have a legal duty to
disclose the partially redacted and retained documents. (Rec. Doc.
26). A judgment was then entered in favor of USCIS, dismissing
Plaintiff's claims.
Plaintiff filed the instant motion for attorneys' fees on
September 5, 2014, seeking a total award of $13,492.16, composed of
$13,009.50 in attorneys' fees and $482.66 in costs. (Rec. Doc. 282, p. 21).
PARTIES' ARGUMENTS
Plaintiff argues that he is both eligible for an award of
attorneys' fees because he "substantially prevailed" in his FOIA
claim as seen by USCIS's ultimate disclosure of the requested
documents, and that he is also entitled to such an award. Plaintiff
also contends that the amount he has requested in attorneys' fees
and costs is reasonable.
In response, Defendant first argues that Plaintiff is not
entitled to attorneys' fees because under the prevailing precedent,
a pro se litigant who is also an attorney is not entitled to an
2
award of attorneys' fees. Alternatively, Defendant asserts that
Plaintiff is neither eligible to receive attorneys' fees because
this Court issued a judgment against him, nor is he entitled to
them.
Moreover,
Defendant
contends
that
the
fees
sought
by
Plaintiff are excessive and unreasonable.
DISCUSSION
Under FOIA, a court "may assess against the United States
reasonable attorneys' fees and other litigation costs reasonably
incurred
in
any
case
.
.
.
in
which
the
complainant
has
substantially prevailed." 5 U.S.C.A. § 552(a)(4)(E)(i); see State
of Tex. v. I.C.C., 935 F.2d, 728, 730 (5th Cir. 1991). The Fifth
Circuit has developed a two-step analysis to determine when such an
award is appropriate. State of Tex., 935 F.2d at 730. First, under
the "eligibility" prong, the court considers whether the plaintiff
"substantially prevailed" in obtaining relief through either a
court order in his favor or a "voluntary or unilateral change in
position
by
the
insubstantial."
agency,
if
the
complainant's
claim
is
not
5 U.S.C.A. § 552(a)(4)(E)(ii). Second, under the
"entitlement" prong, the court "considers a variety of factors to
determine whether the plaintiff should receive fees."
Batton v.
IRS, 718 F.3d 522, 525 (5th Cir. 2013). These factors include: "(1)
the
benefit
to
the
public
deriving
from
the
case;
(2)
the
commercial benefit to the complainant; (3) the nature of the
complainant's interest in the records sought; and (4) whether the
3
government's withholding of the records had a reasonable basis in
law." State of Tex., 935 F.2d at 730.
Despite the fact that the Court has issued an order dismissing
Plaintiff's claims, Plaintiff contends that he has substantially
prevailed in his FOIA claim by causing the USCIS ultimately to
disclose his client's immigration records, which he alleges amounts
to
a "voluntary or unilateral change in position by the agency."
In determining whether a plaintiff has substantially prevailed, the
Fifth Circuit applies the "catalyst theory," which requires a
"showing that the prosecution of the action could reasonably be
regarded as necessary to obtain the information and that the action
had
a
substantive
causative
effect
on
the
delivery
of
the
information." Batton, 718 F.3d at 525. "It is not enough to merely
allege that because the documents were divulged after a lawsuit was
filed, said information was released as a result of that suit."
Arevalo-Franco v. I.N.S., 772 F.Supp. 959, 961 (W.D. Tex. 1991)
(citing Cox v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 601 F.2d 1, 7 (D.C. Cir.
1979)). Plaintiff asserts that USCIS's release of Plaintiff's
client's immigration records on July 8, 2014 was directly caused by
Plaintiff's claim, and that if Plaintiff had not pursued a cause of
action against USCIS, the records would never have been released.
However, Plaintiff has failed to show that the filing of his claim
was either necessary for or causative of USCIS's decision to
disclose the records.
4
Generally, when disclosure of records occurs as a result of
delayed administrative proceedings, rather than the plaintiff's
filing of a lawsuit, the causation requirement of the catalyst
theory is not met. Calypso Cargo Ltd. v. U.S. Coast Guard, 850
F.Supp.2d 1, 4 (D.D.C. 2011) ("If rather than the threat of an
adverse court order, 'an unavoidable delay accompanied by due
diligence in the administrative process was the actual reason for
the agency's failure to respond to a request, then it cannot be
said
the
complainant
substantially
prevailed
in
[its]
suit.'")(quoting Church of Scientology of Cal. v. Harris, 653 F.2d
584, 588 (D.C. Cir. 1981)). Moreover, when plaintiffs in FOIA cases
are aware that administrative problems are causing the government
to delay in disclosing requested information, but pursue a FOIA
lawsuit in spite of this knowledge, "they are generally held not to
have prevailed when the administrative problems are overcome, the
information is produced, and the plaintiff is unable to show that
the lawsuit caused the production." Arevalo-Franco, 772 F.Supp at
961.
USCIS received Plaintiff's FOIA request on May 2, 2014. On the
same date, USCIS notified Plaintiff that his request would be
handled on a "first-in, first-out basis," and that due to the
complexity of the request, it had been placed in "track 2." (Rec.
Doc. 1-4, p. 2). The letter further advised Plaintiff that he could
"narrow [his] request to a specific document in order to be
5
eligible for the faster track." (Rec. Doc. 1-4, p. 2). Plaintiff
does not dispute these facts, nor does he contend that he took any
action to narrow his request in order to expedite the disclosure
process. Plaintiff further admits that he was aware of the time
delay in processing his request by noting that at the time he filed
his lawsuit, his request was number 5,020 out of 12,386 FOIA
requests pending with USCIS. (Rec. Doc. 28-1, p. 3-4). Despite his
knowledge of the administrative problems experienced by USCIS,
Plaintiff filed his claim on June 2, 2014, exactly one month from
the date he filed his FOIA request. USCIS ultimately turned over
the requested documents on July 8, 2014, slightly more than two
months after the original FOIA request, and slightly more than one
month after Plaintiff commenced his lawsuit.
Plaintiff has presented no evidence to show that USCIS's
ultimate disclosure of the requested documents resulted from the
filing of his lawsuit, rather than merely USCIS's ability to
overcome administrative problems. As noted by courts within the
Fifth Circuit, "the attorney fees provision of the FOIA was not
meant to reward plaintiffs who 'impatient with justifiable delays
at
the
administrative
level,
resort
to
the
"squeaky
wheel"
technique of prematurely filing suit in an effort to secure
preferential
treatment.'"
Arevalo-Franco,
772
F.Supp.
at
961
(quoting Fund for Constitutional Govt. v. Nat'l Archives, 656 F.2d
856, 971 (D.C. Cir. 1981)). Despite Plaintiff's awareness of the
6
backlog of requests with which USCIS was dealing, and his failure
to narrow his request to expedite the disclosure process, Plaintiff
chose to file suit in this Court in an effort to avoid the
necessary wait time.
While the Court has sympathy for Plaintiff's
predicament, and does not condone USCIS's delay in responding to
FOIA requests, mere evidence of USCIS's administrative burdens is
not sufficient for Plaintiff to prove that the filing of his
lawsuit necessitated and caused the ultimate disclosure of his
client's records.1 In light of Plaintiff's failure to satisfy the
catalyst theory as well as the fact that a court order was issued
against
Plaintiff,
Plaintiff
has
failed
to
show
that
he
"substantially prevailed" in his lawsuit, and thus is not entitled
to attorneys' fees.2
CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys'
Fees and Costs (Rec. Doc. 28) is DENIED.
1
Plaintiff relies heavily on the case of Batton v. I.R.S. in which the
Fifth Circuit found the plaintiff's FOIA lawsuit had a "substantially causative
impact" on the eventual release of his sought records. 718 F.3d 522, 526 (5th
Cir. 2013). However, in Batton, the plaintiff filed a FOIA claim only after the
I.R.S. "failed to produce a single document or take any other action" for over
a year from his original request. Id. Here, Plaintiff waited only one month
before filing a claim, despite being aware of USCIS's administrative backlog. As
such, the Court does not find Batton to be analogous to the facts at hand.
2
In light of the fact that the Court has concluded that Plaintiff is not
eligible to recover an award of attorneys' fees, the Court finds that it is
unnecessary to determine whether he may be entitled to such an award.
7
New Orleans, Louisiana this 30th day of September, 2014.
________________________________
CARL J. BARBIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
8
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?