Kathryn Roberts v. Commissioner of Social Security

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KATHRYN ROBERTS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 12-15096
D.C. No. 1:09-cv-01581-DLB
MEMORANDUM*
MONICA VONBERCKEFELDT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 12-15121
D.C. No. 1:09-cv-01927-DLB
KHAM SINGMOUNGTHONG,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
No. 12-15122
D.C. No. 1:09-cv-01328-DLB
FILED
JUN 10 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
2
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Dennis L. Beck, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 10, 2013 **
San Francisco, California
Before: W. FLETCHER, GOULD, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
In this consolidated appeal, plaintiffs, successful Social Security benefits
claimants, appeal the district court’s reduction and denial of their requests for
supplemental attorneys’ fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28
U.S.C. § 2412(d). We review a district court’s denial of attorneys’ fees under the
EAJA for abuse of discretion. See Lewis v. Barnhart, 281 F.3d 1081, 1083 (9th
Cir. 2002). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
In its denial or reduction of attorneys’ fees, the district court must offer a
clear and concise explanation, but the explanation does not need to be elaborate.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Moreno v. City of Sacramento, 534 F.3d 1106, 1111 (9th Cir. 2008). A district
court has “substantial discretion in fixing the amount of an EAJA award.”
Comm’r, INS v. Jean, 496 U.S. 154, 163 (1990).
Here, the magistrate judge adequately explained his reasoning for rejecting
fees for the twelve hours spent preparing the supplemental reply briefing: he was
rightfully concerned with a never-ending cycle of EAJA fee requests.
Additionally, the magistrate judge reasonably denied all fees related to his sua
sponte request for additional briefing regarding whether attorney Ralph Wilborn
was entitled to fees. Plaintiffs’ counsel cannot charge the government for fees it
could not charge to a private client. See Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434
(1983) (“Hours that are not properly billed to one’s client also are not properly
billed to one’s adversary pursuant to statutory authority.”) (quoting Copeland v.
Marshall, 641 F.2d 880, 891 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (en banc)).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --