Opinion ID: 615574
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Complaint and Request for EAJA Fees

Text: In 2005, Abdelgalel filed an application for naturalization with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”). After his application had not been adjudicated for three years, Abdelgalel brought this mandamus action seeking an order requiring the USCIS to adjudicate his naturalization application and pay attorneys fees under the EAJA. Abdelgalel originally filed this mandamus action in the Southern District of Alabama. Abdelgalel’s attorney, Robert Ratliff, is admitted to practice law in Alabama and is a member of the Southern District of Alabama’s bar. Abdelgalel, however, later moved to Jacksonville, Florida, and eventually this mandamus action was transferred to the Middle District of Florida. Ratliff, Abdelgalel’s attorney, is not admitted to practice in Florida and is not a member of the Middle District of Florida’s bar. 2 Ultimately, the district court in Florida granted the writ of mandamus, remanded the case to the USCIS to adjudicate the naturalization application within ninety days and stayed Abdelgalel’s attorneys fee request. After the USCIS timely approved Abdelgalel’s naturalization application, Abedelgalel renewed his request for attorneys fees. In a December 14, 2009 order, the district court denied the motion, concluding that Abdelgalel was not a “prevailing party” within the meaning of the EAJA. B. December 14, 2009 Order Warning Abdelgalel that Pleadings by Ratliff Would Be Stricken In its December 14, 2009 order, the district court stated, “Any additional filings by Plaintiff’s counsel in this case shall be STRICKEN from the record until counsel has been admitted to practice in the Middle District of Florida or until he has filed, and this Court has granted, a motion to appear pro hac vice in the instant matter.” (Emphasis added). Ratliff then obtained local counsel, Charles Murray, who entered an appearance and signed and filed a notice of appeal of the district court’s December 14, 2009 order. C. First Appeal and Post-Remand Pleadings Signed by Ratliff In his first appeal to this Court, Abdelgalel argued that he was a “prevailing party” under the EAJA. This Court agreed and remanded for the district court to 3 address whether Abdelgalel had met the other requirements for an award of attorneys fees under the EAJA. Abdelgalel v. Holder, 398 F. App’x 472 (11th Cir. 2010). On remand, Abdelgalel filed his application for the award of attorneys fees and costs totaling $23,199.23. Abdelgalel’s application requested fees only for the work of Alabama attorney Ratliff and two paralegals. Abdelgalel’s application did not request any fees for local Florida counsel Murray. Both Ratliff and Murray signed Abdelgalel’s fee application. The government then filed a brief in opposition to any award of attorney’s fees. Abdelgalel then filed a motion, pursuant to Local Rule 3.01(c), requesting leave to file a reply brief. Both Ratliff and Murray signed this motion.1 The district court denied Abedelgalel’s motion for leave to file a reply brief because it did not certify that he had conferred with opposing counsel, as required by Local Rule 3.01(g). The district court gave Abdelgalel fourteen days to refile a compliant motion for leave, which Abedelgalel did. Both Ratliff and Murray signed this new motion for leave. D. Show Cause Order 1 Local Rule 3.01(c) prohibits parties from filing a reply brief without first obtaining leave from the district court. Local R. 3.01(c). 4 On December 2, 2010, the district court denied Abdelgalel’s motion to file a reply brief. In this same order, the district court gave Abdelgalel fourteen days to show cause why his motion for attorneys fees should not be stricken from the record “for his counsel’s failure to obtain admittance to practice in the Middle District of Florida or file a motion to appear pro hac vice in this matter.” Local counsel Murray signed Abdelgalel’s response to the show cause order. Abdelgalel’s response explained that all post-appeal pleadings were supposed to be filed by Murray, who was admitted to practice in the Middle District of Florida. Although Ratliff was not admitted to practice in the Middle District Court in Florida, Ratliff’s name remained on the fee application because “the fees sought were attributable almost exclusively to [him].” By mistake, a paralegal shared by Ratliff and Murray electronically transmitted Abdelgalel’s fee application under the ECF identifier for Ratliff. Abdelgalel argued that although the paralegal made this “administrative error in transmission,” Murray signed the fee application, indicating that he was “the attorney for the Plaintiff and that indication should control.” Ratliff did not seek admission pro hac vice. Abdelgalel also did not attempt, or offer, to submit an amended fee application signed by only Murray. E. Order Striking Fee Application 5 In a December 15, 2010 order, the district court struck Abdelgalel’s application for attorneys fees “without prejudice to a similar motion restricted to those fees incurred by Plaintiff’s counsel on appeal, Charles A. Murray, if appropriate.” The district court acknowledged Abdelgalel’s argument that Alabama attorney Ratliff’s “signature appears on the motion because the fees sought are attributable almost exclusively to him and the use of his electronic transmittal identifier was merely ‘an administrative glitch.’” However, the district court found that this explanation was not sufficient to show cause, concluding “[e]ven so, it is unclear how this explains Mr. Ratliff’s prior or continued appearance in this District without proper admittance.” Abdelgalel did not file a separate application for Murray’s attorneys fees and instead filed this appeal.