UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

No. 97-1547
G EORGE T. J ONES , A PP EL L ANT ,

V
. T OGO D. W EST , J R ., S EC RE T A RY O F V ET ER A N S A FF A I RS , A PPEL L EE
.

Be fore KRAMER, I VERS, and STEI NB ERG, Judges

. O R D E R
Be fore this Court i s the appe llant's January 11, 2000, application for atto rn ey fee s and ex p en s es un d er

th e E qu al Ac ce s s t o J u s t i ce Ac t , 2 8 U. S

. C

. § 2 4 1 2 (d ) ( E AJ A) , an d th e S ec re t ary 's Fe bruar y 8, 2000, motion to dismiss that EAJA application. For the rea sons that follow, the Court will gr ant the Secr etar

y ' s motion and dismi ss the EAJA application.
The a ppellant, veter an Georg e T. J ones, filed pro se a Notice of Appeal as to a June 10, 1997, decision of the Boa

rd of Veter ans' Appea ls ( BV A). On Marc h 2, 1998, the Secre t ar y fi l ed the desig nation of the re cord. O n April 6, 1998, Charles Tucker, Esq., filed a notice of appe ara nce on be ha lf of the a pp e lla nt; Mr . Tuc ke r state d that he wa s "r e pr e se nti ng the a pp e lla nt w ith out c ha

rg e to the appe llant under the a uspices o f t h e Veter ans Consortium Pro Bono Prog ram." After the transmittal of the record on appea l, the appellant throug h counsel filed a brief a nd a re ply brief, a nd the Secr etar

y filed a br ief. On June 11, 1999, the ca se wa s sub m i t t ed t o a judg e of this Court for single -judg e disposition.
On J uly 8, 1999, the Cons o rt i um notified the Court that Mr. Tucke r had die d on J une 26, 19 99 , an d t hatit was referr in g the c ase t o an ot her C on so rt iu m at to rney . On J ul y 20 , 1 99 9, Karen B. L evin, Esq., filed a notice of appea ranc e for the appellant. On September 17, 1999, the Court issued a memora ndum decision that vac ated the June 1987 BV A dec ision a nd rema nded the matter

. Jones ( Ge or ge ) v . W est , 1999 WL757047, at *4 (Ve t. App. Sept. 1 7 , 1 9 9 9 ). On Octobe r 12, 1999, the Court e nte re d ju dg me nt, a t w hic h ti me the 60 -d ay tim e pe ri od

fo r a ny a pp e a l be g an. U. S. V ET
. A PP
. R. 36. That 60-da

y judicial appea l period expired on Dec ember 13, 1999, at which time the judgme nt beca

me final a nd the 30-day period for filing a n EAJA application beg an. See 28 U. S.C. § 2 41 2( d) (1 )( B ); Strou th v . B ro wn , 8 Vet.App. 502, 504 (1996). On J anuar y 11, 2000, Michae l T. I mms, Esq., of Crawfor d, Wil son, Ry an & Agulnick, the l aw firm in which Mr. Tuc ker w as a pa rtner at the time of his death, filed an EAJA applica tion a lleg edly on behalf of the appellant in this case. On F e br ua ry 8, 20 00 , th e Se c re tary

fi le d a mot ion to d ism iss that E AJA a

pp lic a tio n. No re sp on se to that motion has been filed. On A pril 27, 2000, this matter was re fer red to a panel f or re view.2

Th is C ourt

ha s juri sd ic tio n to awa

rd re a so na ble a tto rn e y

fe e s and e xpe ns e s p ur su ant t o 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) (2)( F) as amende d by section 506 of the Fe dera l Courts Admini stration Act of 19 92 , Pub. L . N o
. 1 0 2

- 5 7 2 , § 5 0 6 , 1 0 6 S t a t

. 4 5 0 6 , 4 5 1 3 ( 1 9 9 2 )

. T h e Janu ar y 1 1 , 2 0 0 0 , E A JA a pp lic a tio n w a s fi le d w ith in t he 30 -d ay

EA JA a

pp lic a tio n p e ri od

se t f or th i n 2 8 U .S. C. § 2 41 2( d) (1 )( B ). Th a t a

pp lic a tio n h a s satis fi e d a

ny jur isd ic tio na l c on te nt r e qu ir e men ts t hat a pp ly beca use it contained the following : (1) A showingthat, by virtue of the Court's r emand, the a ppellant is a preva iling par

ty within the meaningof the EAJA; (2) a showingthat he is a pa rty elig ible for a

n awa rd under the EAJA because his net worth does not exceed $2,000,000; (3) a n alleg ation that the position of the Secre tary

was not subst an t i ally

justified; and (4) a

n itemiz ed stateme nt of the fe es soug ht. See 28 U. S.C. § 2 41 2( d) (1 )( A) , ( 1) (B ), (2 )( B ); Fr itz v . W est , 13 Vet.App. 190, 195 (1999); Che sse r v . W est , 11 Vet.App. 497, 499 ( 1998); Ba za lo v . B ro wn , 9 Vet.App. 304, 308 ( 1996), r e v 'd on oth e r g

ro un ds su b n om . B az alo v . W est , 150 F.3d 1380, 1384 (F ed. Cir. 1998) (conc luding that showing of net wor

th not jurisdictional requirement)

. In h is m oti on

to d ism iss , th e Se c re tary arg ues tha

t th e Janu ary

20 00 EA JA a

pp lic a tio n is invalid beca

use Mr. Imms is not the appe llant's r epre sentative a nd thus cannot re quest EAJ A fe es and expenses on h i s b eh al f. Motion at 3. I t is undisput ed that Mr. Imms has not filed a notice of ap p ea ra n ce o nb eh al f o f t h e ap p el l a n t i n t h i s c a s e, as re qu i re d b y R u l e 4 6 (d )( 2 )( A) o f t h i s C o u rt 's Rules of Practice and Proce dure ( Rules). In addition, Mr. I mms ha s been neither a dmitted to practice befor e this Court under Rule 46(a ) or ( b), nor permitted to a ppear in this case bef

ore this Court pro ha c vic e un de r R

ule 46 (c ). He nc e , h e la c ks the status of a " pr a c tit ion e r" , w ho wo uld be e lig ibl e to file a notice of appe ara

nce he re. SeeU. S. V ET
. A PP
. R. 46(d)(1)

. The Court notes that the a ppellant in this case had been repre sented on a pro bono ba sis; that is, there c an be no question whether the appe llant might be a

ble to use an EA J A awa

rd to reduc e the amou nt o f a c on tin g e nc y

fe e ba se d o n a

n a wa rd of pa st- du e be ne fi ts that e ve ntu a lly mig ht b e du e to his attorney , s e e G a i n es ( J e rr y ) v
. W est , 1 1 V e t.A

pp . 1 13 , 1 15 (1 99 8) (p e r c ur iam or de r) ; Shaw v. Gobe r , 1 0 V e t.A

pp . 4 98 , 5 03 -0 5 ( 19 97 ). B e c a us e the a pp e lla nt i n th is c a se c anno t there fore be financ ially

harme d by the di smissal of t his EAJ A application, the Court will di smiss t he application as defective under Rul e 46(d)(2)( A). The Court does not here decide the question whethe r the Court wi l l d i s m i s s an E AJ A ap p l i ca t i o n , wh i ch i s d ef ec t i v e du e t o th e l ac k

o f c o mp l i an ce wi thth e C o u rt 's Rules b y t h e ap p ell ant' s attorney , wher e the a ppellant might be financ ially disadvantag ed by

such dis mis sa l.
On c on sid e ratio n o f t

he fo re g oin g , it

is ORDERED that the January 11, 2000, EAJA application is DI SMI SSED.
DA TE D: June 29 , 2 00 0 PER CU RIAM

.