NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

GENE S. GROVES,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________ 

2023-1839

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 17-3084, Chief Judge Margaret C. 

Bartley.

______________________ 

Decided: December 7, 2023

______________________ 

GENE S. GROVES, Shafter, TX, pro se.

 AUGUSTUS JEFFREY GOLDEN, Commercial Litigation 

Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, CLAUDIA BURKE, PATRICIA M.

MCCARTHY. 

______________________ 

Case: 23-1839 Document: 18 Page: 1 Filed: 12/07/2023
2 GROVES v. MCDONOUGH

Before MOORE, Chief Judge, DYK and STOLL, Circuit 

Judges. 

PER CURIAM. 

Gene S. Groves appeals a decision of the United States 

Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) 

denying in part Mr. Groves’ application for fees under the 

Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). 

For the following reasons, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND

In July 2017, the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) 

denied Mr. Groves’ claim for vocational rehabilitation and 

employment benefits. Appx. 1–2.1 Mr. Groves appealed 

the Board’s decision to the Veterans Court, paying a $50 

filing fee. Id. at 1, 19. The Veterans Court affirmed the 

Board’s decision. Groves v. McDonough, 33 Vet. App. 368, 

379–83 (2021) (Groves I). Mr. Groves appealed to this 

Court, paying a $500 filing fee. Appx. 2, 21. We vacated 

and remanded. Groves v. McDonough, 34 F.4th 1074, 

1078–81 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (Groves II). On remand, the Veterans Court set aside the Board’s decision and remanded 

to the Board to make the necessary findings of fact consistent with Groves II. Appx. 2.

Mr. Groves filed an EAJA application with the Veterans Court seeking a total of $74,375—$550 for filing fees 

and $73,825 for “[c]omputer legal/records research” and 

“EAJA research”. Id. at 15–18. The Veterans Court 

granted-in-part Mr. Groves’ application in the amount of

$550 for filing fees. Id. at 1–5. The Veterans Court denied 

Mr. Groves’ reimbursement request for time he spent conducting legal research because pro se non-attorney time developing claims is not compensable under EAJA. Id. The 

1 “Appx.” refers to the appendix attached to Respondent’s Informal Brief.

Case: 23-1839 Document: 18 Page: 2 Filed: 12/07/2023
GROVES v. MCDONOUGH 3

Veterans Court also denied Mr. Groves’ request for sanctions. Id. at 4–5. Mr. Groves appeals.

DISCUSSION

Our jurisdiction over decisions of the Veterans Court is 

limited. Under 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a), we may review “the 

validity of a decision of the [Veterans] Court on a rule of 

law or of any statute or regulation . . . or any interpretation 

thereof (other than a determination as to a factual matter) 

that was relied on by the [Veterans] Court in making the 

decision.” Except with respect to constitutional issues, we 

“may not review (A) a challenge to a factual determination, 

or (B) a challenge to a law or regulation as applied to the 

facts of a particular case.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2). 

On appeal, Mr. Groves argues the Veterans Court misinterpreted EAJA to bar pro se appellant recovery for nonattorney research and litigation time. Appellant’s Informal 

Opening Br. 1. We have jurisdiction because Mr. Groves’ 

argument raises a legal question of statutory interpretation. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a). “We review the Veterans Court’s 

interpretation of EAJA de novo.” Kelly v. Nicholson, 463 

F.3d 1349, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2006). 

We agree with the Veterans Court’s interpretation. We 

have previously held pro se litigants are not entitled to attorney fees, including compensation for non-attorney time 

preparing for litigation, under EAJA. See Naekel v. Dep’t 

of Transp., 845 F.2d 976, 980–81 (Fed. Cir. 1988).2 The 

2 Indeed, in two of Mr. Groves’ prior appeals to this 

Court, we rejected Mr. Groves’ argument that he is entitled 

to compensation under EAJA for time spent litigating pro 

se. See Groves v. Shinseki, 541 F. App’x 981, 985 (Fed. Cir. 

2013) (non-precedential) (“We therefore conclude that the 

Veterans Court committed no legal error in denying 

Groves’s request for research expenses [under EAJA].”); 

Case: 23-1839 Document: 18 Page: 3 Filed: 12/07/2023
4 GROVES v. MCDONOUGH

Veterans Court therefore did not err in denying Mr. 

Groves’ request for legal research compensation.3

CONCLUSION

We have considered Mr. Groves’ remaining arguments 

and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we 

affirm the Veterans Court’s denial of Mr. Groves’ request 

for legal research fees.

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs.

Groves v. Shinseki, 417 F. App’x 983, 983 (Fed. Cir. 2011) 

(non-precedential) (“Pro se litigants like Groves are not eligible to recover attorney fees under EAJA.”). We caution 

Mr. Groves that repeatedly making already resolved arguments could give rise to sanctions in a future case.

3 Mr. Groves asserts his Fifth Amendment due process rights were violated because he was not afforded an 

opportunity to address disputes regarding his EAJA application and make appropriate corrections. We do not agree. 

Mr. Groves was given an opportunity to respond to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs’ arguments by filing a reply 

brief. Appx. 34–36. 

Case: 23-1839 Document: 18 Page: 4 Filed: 12/07/2023