Alvarez Hernandez v. Baltazar et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge William J. Martínez
Civil Action No. 26-cv-0276-WJM-TPO
JOSE PEDRO AARON ALVAREZ HERNANDEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
JUAN BALTAZAR, in his official capacity as warden
of the Denver Contract Detention Facility, et al.
Respondents.
ORDER GRANTING ATTORNEY’S FEES AND EXPENSES
Before the Court is Petitioner Jose Pedro Aaron Alvarez Hernandez’s Motion for
Award of Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”)
(“Motion”) (ECF No. 22.) 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 the Denver Field Office of U.S. Immigration & 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 Acting Attorney General of the
1 George Valdez, the Acting Field Office Director for ICE’s Denver Field Office, is
substituted for Robert G. Hagan pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d).
2 Markwayne Mullin, the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, is
substituted for Kristi Noem pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d).
3 Todd Blanche, the Acting Attorney General of the United States, is substituted for
Pamela Bondi pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d).
Case No. 1:26-cv-00276-WJM-TPO Document 26 filed 04/23/26 USDC Colorado
pg 1 of 3

2
United States Department of Justice (collectively, “Respondents” or “the Government”),
filed a response. (ECF No. 25.) Alvarez Hernandez did not file a reply.
For the following reasons, the Motion is granted.
I. 	ANALYSIS
Alvarez Hernandez is a non-citizen who has lived in the United States for 24
years. (ECF No. 3 at 6.) He is married, owns his own mechanic shop, and is the main
financial provider for his family. (Id.) Alvarez Hernandez has no “criminal history that
would subject him to mandatory detention.” (Id.)
Despite all this, the Government detained Alvarez Hernandez pursuant to 8
U.S.C. § 1225—not 8 U.S.C. § 1226—at the Denver Contract Detention Facility in
Aurora, Colorado, without the opportunity to post bond. (Id.) In January 2026, Alvarez
Hernandez filed this habeas action, seeking a bond hearing or immediate release.
(ECF No. 1.) Relying on 8 U.S.C. § 1226, the Court granted that petition and ordered
that Alvarez Hernandez be given a bond hearing, at which the Government was
required to “bear the burden to justify Alvarez Hernandez’s continued detention by clear
and convincing evidence.” (ECF No. 17 at 8.) In February 2026, Alvarez Hernandez
was granted bond in the amount of $10,000, which he posted. (ECF No. 21.) He then
sought an award of attorney’s fees in the amount of $3,824 and expenses in the amount
of $1,552 pursuant to the EAJA, 28 U.S.C. § 2412. (ECF No. 22.)
An award for attorney’s fees and expenses under the EAJA would ordinarily
require the Court to perform an analysis as to whether the moving party is an eligible
prevailing party; whether the government’s position was not substantially justified; and
whether special circumstances exist that would make such an award unjust. 28 U.S.C.
Case No. 1:26-cv-00276-WJM-TPO Document 26 filed 04/23/26 USDC Colorado
pg 2 of 3

3
§ 2412(d)(1)(A)–(B); Al-Maleki v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1200, 1204 (10th Cir. 2009).
That analysis is not necessary here, however, because the Government does not
“contest the amount of fees sought by Petitioner or oppose an order imposing fees in
the amount requested by Petitioner.” (ECF No. 25.) Accordingly, assuming—without
deciding4—that Alvarez Hernandez satisfies EAJA’s standards, the Court grants the
Motion in full.
II. 	CONCLUSION
1. 	The Motion is GRANTED. (ECF No. 22.)
2. 	Pursuant to the EAJA, the Government is ORDERED, by no later than May
14, 2026, to pay to Alvarez Hernandez his attorney’s fees in the amount of
$3,824, and his expenses in the amount of $1,552, for a total payment to
Petitioner of $5,376.
Dated this 23 rd day of April, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
______________________
William J. Martinez
Senior United States District Judge
4 The Court emphasizes that it does not base this Order on a substantive consideration
of the EAJA requirements. A fulsome analysis of those issues will be appropriate in other
immigration habeas cases that, unlike this case, are opposed.
Case No. 1:26-cv-00276-WJM-TPO Document 26 filed 04/23/26 USDC Colorado
pg 3 of 3