Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_14-cv-00723/USCOURTS-azd-4_14-cv-00723-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

John Harvey Johnson, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Louis Winn, 

Respondent.

No. CV-14-00723-TUC-JAS (CRP)

REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

 Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s: (1) Request for Fees and Costs and 

Declaration of Petitioner as Prevailing Party (Doc. 22); and (2) Declaratory Judgment 

Request (Doc. 17). For the foregoing reasons, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the 

District Court, after its independent review, deny Petitioner’s motions. 

DISCUSSION

 Petitioner, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, commenced this action 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. '2241, claiming that the Bureau of Prisons failed to credit him for: 

(1) 15 days of post-offense custodial time (Ground One); (2) 465 days of post-offense 

custodial time (Ground Two); and (3) 97 months of post-offense custodial time (Ground 

Three). (See Petition (Doc. 1); Order granting in forma papueris status (Doc. 6)). 

Respondent, in his Answer, conceded that Petitioner was entitled to credit from January 

17, 2010 through January 24, 2010, and indicated that Petitioner’s sentence computation 

was updated to reflect same. (Answer (Doc. 9), pp. 6, 9). On February 5, 2015, the 

parties filed a Stipulation of Dismissal dismissing Petitioner’s remaining claims for relief, 

Case 4:14-cv-00723-JAS Document 24 Filed 05/05/15 Page 1 of 3
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

which the Court granted. (Docs. 16, 20). Petitioner now seeks fees and costs and a 

declaration that he is a prevailing party. Respondent opposes Petitioner’s motions. (Doc. 

23). 

 Petitioner does not state a basis upon which he would be entitled to costs or fees. 

The Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. 2412, permits the court to award attorneys’ 

fees and costs against the government to the same extent that a court may award such fees 

and costs in actions between other parties. Petition of Hill, 775 F.2d 1037, 1041 (9th Cir. 

1985). However, a pro se litigant is not entitled to attorneys’ fees under the EAJA. 

Merrell v. Block, 809 F.2d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 1987). Moreover, because Petitioner is 

proceeding in forma pauperis, he is precluded from recovering costs from the 

government. See 28 U.S.C. '1915(f)(1) (“Judgment may be rendered for costs at the 

conclusion of the suit or action as in other proceedings; but the United States shall not be 

liable for any of the costs, thus incurred.”) (emphasis added); Maida v. Callahan, 148 

F.3d 190, 193 (2d Cir. 1998) (noting that “the in forma pauperis statute prevents an 

indigent claimant from recovering costs against the United States....”). Consequently, 

Petitioner is not entitled to fees or costs. 

 Petitioner also seeks a declaration that he is the prevailing party “to prevent this 

case from ever improperly being counted as a ‘strike’ under the...” Prison Litigation 

Reform Act (“PLRA”).” (Doc. 17, p. 2); see also 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(g) (“if the prisoner 

has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought 

an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that 

it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted....”). 

However, '1915(g)’s three strikes provision does not apply to habeas petitions. See 18 

U.S.C. '3626(g)(2) (PLRA restrictions do “not include habeas corpus proceedings 

challenging the fact or duration of confinement in prison....”); Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 

1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 2005) (“dismissed habeas petitions do not count as strikes under § 

1915(g).”). Because the PLRA’s three strikes provision does not apply to this action, 

Petitioner’s request for declaratory judgment to avoid the three strikes provision is moot. 

Case 4:14-cv-00723-JAS Document 24 Filed 05/05/15 Page 2 of 3
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

RECOMMENDATION

 For the foregoing reasons, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District 

Court, after its independent review, deny Petitioner’s: (1) Request for Fees and Costs and 

Declaration of Petitioner as Prevailing Party (Doc. 22); and (2) Declaratory Judgment 

Request (Doc. 17). 

 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b) and Rule 72(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure and LRCiv 7.2(e), Rules of Practice of the U.S. District Court for the District 

of Arizona, any party may serve and file written objections within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS

after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation. A party may respond 

to another party’s objections within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being served with a copy. 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). No replies to objections shall be filed unless leave is granted from 

the District Court to do so. If objections are filed, the parties should use the following 

case number: CV 14-723-TUC-JAS. 

 Failure to file timely objections to any factual or legal determination of the 

Magistrate Judge may be deemed a waiver of the party’s right to de novo review of the 

issues. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.) (en banc) 540 

U.S. 900 (2003). 

 Dated this 4th day of May, 2015. 

Case 4:14-cv-00723-JAS Document 24 Filed 05/05/15 Page 3 of 3