Adolph Michelin v. Warden Moshannon Valley Correctional Center
Split Score
What is a Split Score?
This score (0-100) indicates how likely this case is to be reviewed by the Supreme Court based on:
Case Summary
Disposition
Affirmed
The Third Circuit held that a habeas petition brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to challenge civil immigration detention is a “civil action” within the meaning of the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). Accordingly, the EAJA waives federal sovereign immunity and permits fee awards to prevailing habeas petitioners, and the District Court did not abuse its discretion in finding the Government’s position against detainee Adewumi Abioye was not substantially justified. The panel therefore affirmed both fee awards granted to detainees Adolph Michelin and Adewumi Abioye.
Circuit Split Identified
Legal Issue
Whether a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging immigration detention qualifies as an EAJA “civil action,” thereby waiving federal sovereign immunity for attorneys’-fee awards.
Circuit Positions
EAJA covers § 2241 immigration-detention habeas petitions; fee awards are permitted.
EAJA does not clearly cover § 2241 immigration-detention habeas petitions; sovereign immunity is not waived.
Conflict Summary
The Second, Ninth, Tenth, and now Third Circuits conclude that the EAJA phrase “any civil action (other than cases sounding in tort)” unambiguously encompasses § 2241 immigration-detention habeas proceedings, so fees may be recovered. The Fourth and Fifth Circuits hold the term is ambiguous and, applying the sovereign-immunity canon, find no waiver—thus barring EAJA fees in such habeas cases.