Temaj Lopez v. Baltazar et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge William J. Martínez
Civil Action No. 26-cv-0688-WJM
GABRIEL TEMAJ LOPEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
JUAN BALTASAR, in his official capacity as Warden of the Denver
Contract Detention Facility, et al.
Respondents.
ORDER GRANTING ATTORNEY’S FEES
PURSUANT TO THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT
Before the Court is Petitioner Gabriel Temaj Lopez’s Motion for Award of
Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”) (“Motion”) (ECF
No. 16). Respondents Juan Baltazar, in his official capacity as Warden of the Denver
Contract Detention Facility; George Valdez,1 in his official capacity as Field Office
Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”); Markwayne Mullin,2 in
his official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Todd
Lyons, in his official capacity as Acting Director of ICE; and Todd Blanche,3 in his official
capacity as Attorney General of the U.S. Department of Justice (collectively,
1 George Valdez replaced Robert Hagan as Field Office Director of U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement.
2 Markwayne Mullin replaced Kristi Noem as Secretary of the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security.
3 Todd Blanche replaced Pamela Bondi as Attorney General of the U.S. Department of
Justice.
Case No. 1:26-cv-00688-WJM Document 21 filed 06/16/26 USDC Colorado pg 1
of 3

2
“Respondents” or “the Government”), filed a response. (ECF No. 17.) Temaj Lopez
filed a reply. (ECF No. 18.)
For the following reasons, the Motion is granted.
I. 	DISCUSSION
In February 2026, Temaj Lopez filed his habeas corpus petition challenging his
mandatory detention under the Government’s new interpretation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1226,
1225(b)(2). (ECF No. 1.) In March 2026, the Court granted that petition and ordered
that he be given a bond hearing. (ECF No. 14.) 	Temaj Lopez was ultimately granted
bond in the amount of $3,000, which he posted. (ECF No. 16 at 5.) He now “moves the
Court for an award of $4,633” under EAJA. (Id. at 1.)
The Government opposes the Motion on a single ground: In its view, attorney
fees are not available under EAJA in these circumstances because the Government’s
position was substantially justified. (See ECF No. 17 at 3 (citing 28 U.S.C. §
2412(d)(1)(B), which provides that fees are available to a prevailing party against the
Government only if the latter’s position in the case not substantially justified).) If the
Court rejects this argument, however, the Government “do[es] not dispute the amount of
fees sought in this case (totaling $4,633).” (Id. at 7.)
The Court does in fact reject the Government’s argument. As explained in its
recent Morales Lopez decision, the Court found that the same position the Government
has taken in this case—that section 1225(b), and not section 1226(a), applies—was not
substantially justified. Morales Lopez v. Baltazar, 2026 WL 1587510, at *5 (D. Colo.
May 29, 2026). There, the Court held “attorney fees under EAJA are available to
Morales Lopez and those similarly situated.” Id. at 9. Notably, the Government does
Case No. 1:26-cv-00688-WJM Document 21 filed 06/16/26 USDC Colorado pg 2
of 3

3
not advance any new or different arguments the Court did not already address and
reject in Morales Lopez. The Court will therefore apply its holding in Morales Lopez to
the Motion presently before it.
For these reasons, and the fact that the Government does not dispute the fee
amount sought by Temaj Lopez, the Motion will be granted in its entirety. (ECF No. 16.)
II. 	CONCLUSION
Petitioner’s EAJA Motion is GRANTED. (ECF No. 16.)
The Government is ORDERED to pay Temaj Lopez his attorneys’ fees in the
amount of $4,633 by no later than July 14, 2026.
Dated this 16 th day of June, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
______________________
William J. Martinez
Senior United States District Judge
Case No. 1:26-cv-00688-WJM Document 21 filed 06/16/26 USDC Colorado pg 3
of 3