FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T OCT 4, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 10 91 9 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 9 :1 0- cv -8 00 48 -KLR JEFF GRAY, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff –Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us SECRETARY FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, DIRECTOR OF THE US CITIZENSHIP AND IMMI GRATION SERVICES (USCIS ), DISTRIC T DIRECTOR, East ernReg io n F ie ldOffic es , USCIS, W . PALM BCH. FIELD OFFIC E USCIS, Fi el d Off ic e Dir ect or , ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l l Defen da nt s–App el le es .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Oct ob er 4 , 20 11 )Befo re BARKETT, MARCUS an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

PER CURI AM: Je ff Gray is a l awfu l-p erm an en t re si de ntof t he Uni te d S ta te s wh os e na tu ral iz at io n app li cat io n was de ni edinOcto be r 20 07 by the Uni te d S ta te s B ur eau of Cit iz en sh ip an d Immig rat io n S erv ic es (USCIS ). Bu t Gray ne ve r rec ei ve d a co py of th atde ci si on an d s o i n J anua ry 20 10 he fil eda lawsu it , pro ceed in g pr o s e , 1 un de r 8 U.S.C . § 1 44 7( b) be cau se he be li ev edth atUSCIS h adfai le d t o re nd er a de ci si on withi n 1 20 day s o f hi s n atur al iz at io n e xa m in at io n. Th e d is tri ctco urt ag reedan d re m an de d Gra y ’s cas e to USCIS s o tha t i t co ul d re nd er a d eci si on an d Gray co ul d re qu es t a h eari ng onth atde ci si on if h is ap pl ic at io n wer e d en ie d. As re qu ire d b y

th e d is tri ctco urt’s re m an d o rd er, USCI S se ntGray a co py of hi s i m m ig rat io n fi le . The b ur eauth ensen t h im a le tt er tha t s ai d i t wo ul d n ot reo pe n h is cas e b ecau se th e g ro un ds on whi chitha d o rig in al ly den ie d h is ap pl ic at io n i n Oct ob er 2 00 7 wer e st il l ap pl ic ab le , bu t tha t h e co ul d re qu es t a he ari ng onit s “ de ci si on .” Gray res po nd edby fili ng a m ot io n fo r anord er t o s ho w cau se . Thatm ot io n was de ni ed , bu t the di st ric t co urt o rd eredUSCIS t o s en d Gra y a co py of it s “ de ci si on ” wit hi n two d ay s. InAug us t 2 01 0, USC IS s en t Gray an ot he r le tt er d en y in g h is ap pl ic at io n andtel li ng hi m th athe co ul d re qu es t a The de cision was sent to the wr ongaddre ss. 1 2he ari ng . Gray th enfil edan ot he r m ot io n fo r anord er t o s ho w cau se an d am ot io n fo r in jun ct iv e rel ie f. Fin al ly Gray fil eda m ot io n fo r co st s. All of t ho se m ot io ns were d en ie d. Gray the n fi le d thi s ap pe al . 2 Bu t s in ce Gray app eal ed , USCIS h as on ce ag ai n re vi ewedGray ’s na tu ral iz at io n app li cat io n andis su eda ne w dec is io n. Be cau se USCIS’s ac ti on s ha ve pro vi de d Gra y

th e rel ie f he so ug htinhi s l aws ui t, h is ap pe al fro m th e d is tri ct co urt’s d en ia l o f hi s m ot io n fo r anord er t o s ho w cau se an d h is m ot io n fo r in jun ct iv e rel ie f is m oo t. Ja cks on vi ll e Pro p. Ri gh ts Ass ’n v. Cit

y o f Ja cks on vi ll e , 63 5 F .3d12 26 , 12 74 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ). Acco rd in gl y , we are wi th ou t juris di ct io n t o co ns id er tho se asp ect s o f Gray’ s ap pe al an d we d is m is s the m . Butwe st il l m us t co ns id er wh ethe r Gray was en ti tl edto co st s u nd er the Equ al Acces s t o J us ti ce Act (EAJA). W e rev ie w an o rd er d en y in g c os ts un de r th e EAJA fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Uni te d Sta tes v. Ad

ki ns on , 24 7 F .3d12 89 , 12 90 (11 thCir . 20 01 ). Und er the EAJA, as a pr ev ai li ng party, Gray wou ldbe en ti tl edto co st s, b utno t fe es be cau se he was p ro ceed in g pr o s e , un le ss th e g ov ern m en t’s p os it io n i n the li ti ga ti on was subs tant ia ll y

jus ti fie d. 2 8 U.S.C. § 24 12 (d )(1 )(A); se e a ls o Cla rk so n v . IRS , 67 8

Be causeGra

y is procee ding pro se , we r ead his brie fs libera lly . Harris v. United Auto 2 Ins. Group , 579 F.3d 1227, 1231 n.2 ( 11th Cir. 2009). 3F.2 d 1 36 8, 1 37 1 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 2) (“ Unl ik e at to rn ey fees , ho wev er, co st s o f li ti ga ti on canbe reas on ab ly inc urredev enby a pro se l it ig an t wh o i s n otan at to rn ey .”). In t hi s ca se , th e g ov ern m en t’s p os it io n was subs tant ia ll y jus ti fie d be cau se USCIS h adact edonGray ’s app li cat io n wi th in12 0 d ay s o f hi s na tu ral iz at io n app li cat io n andsen t a c op y of the de ci si on to Gray , altho ug h i t ne ve r arri ve d b ecau se itwas m is ta ke nl y ad dr es se d. Acco rd in gl y , th e d is tri ctco urt di d n otab us e it s d is cret io n i n d en y in g Gra y ’s app li cat io n fo r co st s. DISMI SSED i n pa rt, AFFIRMED i n pa rt.

4