Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01162/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01162-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jimmy G. Daniel
Appellant
Louis W. Sullivan
Appellee

Document Text:

~niteb jtates Qlourt of J\ppeals 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

OFFICE OF THE CLERK 

C404 UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE 

DENVER, COLORADO 80294 

ROBERT L. HOECKER October 18, 1990 CLERK 

TO: ALL RECIPIENTS OF THE CAPTIONED ORDER AND JUDGMENT 

RE : No. 89-1162 - Daniel v. Sullivan 

Filed October 15, 1990 by Judge Bobby R. Baldock 

Attached is a reissued order and judgment. The original 

TELEPHONE 

<303> 844· 31S7 

<FTSl 564-3157 

was sent October 15, 1990. The order and iudgment was reissued to 

reflect Judge Baldock as the author. 

Very truly yours, 

ROBERT L. HOECKER, CLERK 

By 

RLH;fg 

Enclosure 

Appellate Case: 89-1162 Document: 010110059633 Date Filed: 10/15/1990 Page: 1 
... 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

JIMMY G. DANIEL, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

vs. 

LOUIS W. SULLIVAN, M.D., 

Secretary of Health and 

Human Services, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 89-1162 

(D.C. No. 87-Z-234) 

(D. Colo.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before BALDOCK, BARRETT and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

The government filed an appeal (No. 89-1153) from the 

district court's order reconsidering an award of attorney's fees 

to plaintiff-appellant Jimmy G. Daniel. Plaintiff cross-appealed 

from the original order awarding attorney's fees (No. 89-1162). 

By stipulation of the parties, the government's appeal was 

dismissed; only the cross-appeal remains pending. Our 

jurisdiction to review this Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 

u.s.c. S 2412(d), award of attorney's fees arises under 28 u.s.c. 

1291. 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-1162 Document: 010110059633 Date Filed: 10/15/1990 Page: 2 
1 

the cost of living may have increased since 1981. Headlee, 

869 F.2d at 551. We were persuaded that discretion to 

consider the cost of living as an element in the hourly rate 

under§ 2412(d)(2)(A) properly lies with the district court; 

an increase is not automatic. Id. at 552; McNulty v. 

Sullivan, 886 F.2d 1074 (8th Cir. 1989). The district court 

is in a better position to evaluate the overall award, 

including the rate selected. See Commissioner, INS v. Jean, 

110 S. Ct. 2316, 2320 (1990); Starrett v. Wadley, 876 F.2d 

808, 825 (10th Cir. 1989) (citing Headlee). 

Plaintiff requests that we reconsider our decision in 

Headlee in light of contrary caselaw in other circuits. See 

Headlee, 869 F.2d at 552 (McKay, J., dissenting). We decline 

to do so, instead entrusting the overall fee award, including 

the hourly rate determination, within the sound discretion of 

the district courts. Although plaintiff argues that the 

district court did not provide a sufficient explanation of 

why a cost-of-living adjustment was denied, in light of 

Headlee this argument is without merit. The district court 

implicitly determined that the amount awarded fit the amount 

and difficulty of the work performed. See rec. vol. I, doc. 

7 at 5-6. On this record, that determination is not an abuse 

of discretion. 

AFFIRMED. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-1162 Document: 010110059633 Date Filed: 10/15/1990 Page: 3