Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_14-cv-00723/USCOURTS-azd-4_14-cv-00723-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Harvey Johnson
Petitioner
Louis Winn Jr.
Respondent

Document Text:

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. 

John T. Shartle,1

Respondent.

No. CV-14-00723-TUC-JAS

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) issued by 

Magistrate Judge Charles R. Pyle (Doc. 24). In that Report, Judge Pyle recommends 

denying Petitioner’s Request for Fees and Costs and Declaration of Petitioner as 

Prevailing Party (Doc. 22) and Declaratory Judgment Request (Doc. 17). The Petitioner 

filed an Objection to Report and Recommendation (Doc. 25) and Respondent filed a 

Reply (Doc. 27). The Court reviews de novo the objected-to portions of the Report and 

Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). 

 After an independent de novo review of the record, the Court adopts the Report. 

Petitioner argues that he is entitled to an award of costs and fees because he substantially 

prevailed in the litigation, because the “Hyde Amendment” authorizes such an award, 

and/or based on Judge Reeves’ “principle of circuitry.” However, only the first argument 

was presented to the magistrate judge, and the Court would not exercise its discretion to 

allow Petitioner to present additional arguments before this Court. See United States v. 

 

1

 John T. Shartle has replaced Louis Winn Jr. as the Warden and has been 

automatically substituted as the Defendant. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 25(d). 

Case 4:14-cv-00723-JAS Document 28 Filed 08/25/15 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 

Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 621 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[A] district court has discretion, but is not 

required, to consider evidence presented for the first time in a party's objection to a 

magistrate judge's recommendation.”). 

 Even if the Court would exercise its discretion to allow Petitioner to present new 

arguments, those arguments would not alter the conclusions of the Report. The Supreme 

Court has squarely rejected the “catalyst theory” approach for prevailing party 

determinations. Buckhannon Bd. and Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dep’t of Health 

and Human Res., 532 U.S. 598 (2001). The Hyde Amendment allows a defendant in a 

criminal case to be awarded compensation if the position of the United States is 

vexatious, frivolous, or in bad faith. Hyde Amendment, Pub. L. No. 105-119, 111 Stat. 

2440 (1997). This is not a criminal case, and even if it were, the prompt recalculation of 

Petitioner’s sentence shows the government’s position was not taken in bad faith. See, 

e.g., Sloan v. Pugh, 351 F.3d 1319 (10th Cir. 2003) (“[H]abeas proceedings are “unique” 

or “hybrid” types of cases that fall within the scope of neither the EAJA nor the Hyde 

Amendment.”). Finally, neither Respondent nor the Court can find any support for Judge 

Reeves’ “Principle of Circuitry” that would be applicable in this case. 

 Petitioner also argues that the Report improperly concludes that his action is moot, 

because it is capable of repetition yet evading review; however, that argument 

misunderstands the Report’s reasoning. Petitioner requested a declaratory judgment 

stating he was a prevailing party so that this action would not count as a strike under the 

Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). The Report correctly concluded that argument 

was moot because habeas petitions – such as this one filed by Petitioner – cannot count as 

strikes under the PLRA. Even if the Court were to exercise discretion to entertain this 

new argument from Petitioner, the possibility of future changes in his sentence 

calculation is mere speculation, far different from the types of harm that are likely to 

evade review. 

 For these reasons, this Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the Report issued by Judge 

Pyle. Petitioner’s Request for Fees and Costs and Declaration of Petitioner as Prevailing 

Case 4:14-cv-00723-JAS Document 28 Filed 08/25/15 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 

Party (Doc. 22) and Declaratory Judgment Request (Doc. 17) are DENIED. 

 Dated this 25th day August, 2015. 

Honorable James A. Soto 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:14-cv-00723-JAS Document 28 Filed 08/25/15 Page 3 of 3