ARROYAVE v. STAMPER et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
KEVIN HENAO
ARROYAVE,
Petitioner,
v.
DERRICK STAMPER,
Chief Patrol Agent, Houlton Sector,
U.S. Border Patrol, et al.,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
1:26-cv-00093-SDN
ORDER GRANTING MOTION
FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND EXPENSES
On February 24, 2026, this Court granted Petitioner Kevin Henao Arroyave’s
request for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. ECF No. 7. It held section 8 U.S.C. §
1226(a) governs the detention of Petitioner, a noncitizen who has resided continuously in
the United States for more than four years. Id. at 3. Mr. Arroyave now timely moves for
an award of attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”),
28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), totaling $5,104.33 inclusive of fees litigating the present motion. ECF
Nos. 16, 18. For the reasons below, the Court grants Petitioner’s motion as it did in
previous cases. 1
1 A pending appeal to the First Circuit seeks to precisely address this matter. See Bernardo-
Rodrigues v. Hyde, No. 25-cv-00553, 2026 WL 370863, at *2 (D. Me. Feb. 10, 2026), appeal
docketed, No. 26-1375 (1st Cir. Apr. 9, 2026).
Case 1:26-cv-00093-SDN Document 19 Filed 10/09/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
ANALYSIS
The EAJA directs a court to award fees, costs, and expenses to the prevailing party
in a civil action 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). The “position of the United States” encompasses both
the 	underlying 	agency 	action 	and 	the 	Government’s 	litigation 	position. 	Id.
§ 2412(d)(2)(D). The applicant must therefore show (1) it prevailed in the civil action, (2)
its application was timely, (3) the Government’s position was not substantially justified,
and (4) no special circumstances make an award unjust. Castañeda-Castillo v. Holder,
723 F.3d 48, 57 (1st Cir. 2013).
Respondents rest their opposition on a single ground: that the Government has not
waived sovereign immunity as to fees in immigration habeas proceedings. ECF No. 17 at
2–9. Specifically, the Government contends that a habeas proceeding is not a “civil action”
under the EAJA, so it has not waived sovereign immunity from an award of fees in such a
proceeding. ECF No. 17 at 1. The Government concedes that this Court has rejected its
arguments “in analogous cases in this district,” and that it asserts those arguments again
only “to preserve its rights on appeal.” Id.
Indeed, 	the 	Court 	has 	repeatedly 	held 	that 	habeas 	petitions 	challenging
immigration detention are “civil action[s]” within the meaning of EAJA. Ojeda Montoya
v. Joyce, No. 25-CV-00558, 2025 WL 3557777, at *2 (D. Me. Nov. 17, 2025); Pérez Piña
v. Stamper, No. 25-CV-00509, ECF No. 34, at 6 (D. Me. May 20, 2026); Bernardo-
Rodrigues v. Hyde, No. 25-CV-00553, 2026 WL 370863, at *2 (D. Me. Feb. 10, 2026).
Other district courts within the First Circuit agree. See, e.g., Orrego Orrego v. Hyde, 2026
WL 1480362, at *1–2 (D. Mass. May 27, 2026) (“habeas actions are civil actions for the
Case 1:26-cv-00093-SDN Document 19 Filed 10/09/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
purposes of EAJA.”); Dos Santos v. Wesling, No. 26-CV-531, 2026 WL 2837799, at *1
(D.R.I. Sept. 22, 2026). Respondents have not persuaded the Court to depart from that
consensus here and the Court therefore GRANTS Petitioner’s motion for attorney’s fees.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s motion for attorney’s
fees, ECF No. 16; ECF No. 18, and ORDERS the United States to pay attorney’s fees in
the amount of $5,104.33, in full satisfaction of any and all attorney’s fees and expenses
under the EAJA in this action.
S O ORDERED .
Dated this 9th day of October, 2026.
/s/ Stacey D. Neumann
UNITED S TATES DISTRICT J UDGE
Case 1:26-cv-00093-SDN Document 19 Filed 10/09/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>