NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SANYA LEE MEMBE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner 

of Social Security, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 22-35152 

D.C. No. 6:20-cv-00896-MK 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Mustafa T. Kasubhai, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 7, 2023**

Portland, Oregon

Before: M. SMITH, FORREST, and SUNG, Circuit Judges.

Plaintiff-Appellant Sanya Lee Membe appeals the partial denial of her 

application for fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2412(d). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

FEB 17 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

A district court “always retain[s] substantial discretion in fixing the amount 

of an EAJA award,” Comm’r, INS v. Jean, 496 U.S. 154, 163 (1990), given “the 

district court’s superior understanding of the litigation and the desirability of 

avoiding frequent appellate review of what essentially are factual matters.” Hensley 

v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437 (1983). We review the district court’s decision for 

abuse of discretion, which occurs when the district court applies an incorrect legal 

standard or its application of the correct standard is “illogical, implausible or without 

support in inferences that may be drawn from the facts in the record.” Meier v. 

Colvin, 727 F.3d 867, 869–70 (9th Cir. 2013). 

Because the district court in this case reduced the number of hours for which

it awarded fees by 20 to 25 percent, it was required to explain its reasoning with 

specificity. See Moreno v. City of Sacramento, 534 F.3d 1106, 1111–12 (9th Cir. 

2008). In doing so, district courts should examine case-specific factors including the 

record size, procedural history, issue complexity, and when counsel was retained. 

Costa v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 690 F.3d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 2012).

Here, the district court adequately explained its reasoning and did not abuse 

its discretion. It was not illogical for the judge to rely on his experience and 

familiarity with the litigation in concluding that the record size was not abnormal1

1The district court’s reference to the record being “approximately 1,700 

pages” might have been a scrivener’s error, but regardless, it was harmless error. 
3 

or that the issues in the case are familiar because they “are frequently litigated.” Nor 

was it error to decline to survey hours found reasonable in other cases or cite 

nonbinding case law. See Costa, 690 F.3d at 1136 (questioning the usefulness of 

surveying other cases to decide reasonableness of hours spent on a matter). In sum, 

the district court sufficiently explained that it excluded 20 hours from its calculation

because the issues presented were not complex, counsel was experienced and 

knowledgeable, and the record was not abnormally long.

2

AFFIRMED.

Membe primarily alleged that the ALJ erred at step three and does not argue that 

her case involved issues requiring detailed review of all, or even most, of the record. 

2We deny the Commissioner’s request that we take judicial notice of the EAJA 

database maintained by the Administrative Conference of the United States. ECF

No. 17. The database is not relevant to our decision. See Santa Monica Food Not 

Bombs v. City of Santa Monica, 450 F.3d 1022, 1025 n.2. (9th Cir. 2006) (declining 

to take judicial notice of documents irrelevant to resolution of the appeal). However, 

we grant the Commissioner’s request that we take judicial notice of district court 

orders issued after this appeal was filed, ECF No. 34, as these dispositions are 

relevant to understanding the full procedural history of this case. See Reyn’s Pasta 

Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, Inc., 442 F.3d 741, 746 n.6 (9th Cir. 2006).