Hunt v. Federal Emergency Management Agency et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAI‘I
TAMLYN HUNT,
Plaintiff,
v.
FEDERAL EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT AGENCY, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 25-cv-00035-DKW-KJM
ORDER (1) OVERRULING
PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO
AND (2) ADOPTING THE
FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION
OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE TO
DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
ATTORNEY’S FEES1
On August 20, 2026, the assigned U.S. Magistrate Judge recommended
denying Plaintiff Tamlyn Hunt’s motion for attorney’s fees on two grounds (F&R):
(1) Hunt, though apparently an attorney, proceeded pro se in this action and, thus,
could not recover attorney’s fees, and (2) Hunt was not a prevailing party in this
lawsuit, as required by statute. 	Dkt. No. 96. 	Hunt objects to this
recommendation, arguing that (1) he is entitled to attorney’s fees under “Hawaii’s
private attorney general doctrine,” and (2) he purportedly prevailed on the
“disputed main issue[]” in this case. 	Dkt. No. 97.
1 Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(c) & (d), the Court elects to decide this matter without a hearing.
Case 1:25-cv-00035-DKW-KJM Document 100 Filed 10/13/26 Page 1 of 2
PageID.<pageID>

2
Because Hunt has clearly not prevailed in this case, his objections are
OVERRULED, and the Court adopts the F&R.2
Despite Hunt’s efforts to conjure success from the discussions of a
“stakeholder meeting”,3 the record is clear that he did not prevail in this case.
Instead, Judgment was entered in favor of Defendants after both this Court and the
Ninth Circuit determined that Hunt lacked standing to pursue this action because
he had not shown an injury-in-fact. 	Dkt. No. 88 at 2-3; Dkt. Nos. 91-92. 	In other
words, Hunt was not even entitled to bring this lawsuit, let alone prevail in it.
Moreover, along the way, Hunt managed not to prevail in every skirmish, with his
motions and other filings being denied or stricken. 	See Dkt. Nos. 20, 26, 35, 44,
46, 59, 65, 73, 75, 80-82, 91. 	In no possible sense, therefore, can Hunt be
considered a prevailing party.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 13, 2026 at Honolulu, Hawai‘i.
2 The Court, thus, does not address whether Hunt, as a pro se litigant, is entitled to obtain
attorney’s fees that he never incurred.
3 Hunt’s purported success is premised upon the declaration of an individual present at the
meeting who believed that “it was made clear that Plaintiff’s lawsuit was the catalyst for
DLNR’s suggested scope change to remove the filling of thermal ponds….” 	Dkt. No. 97 at 13.
While details on who or how it was “made clear” are noticeably missing from the declaration,
the Court finds it irrelevant to gauging whether Hunt is a prevailing party.
_______________________________
Derrick K. Watson
Chief United States District Judge
/s/ Derrick K. Watson
Case 1:25-cv-00035-DKW-KJM Document 100 Filed 10/13/26 Page 2 of 2
PageID.<pageID>