Document: 541 U.S. 401 SCARBOROUGHv.PRINCIPI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS. No. 02-1657. Supreme Court of United States. Argued February 23, 2004. Decided May 3, The Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) authorizes the payment attorney's fees a prevailing party in an action against States absent showing by Government that its position underlying litigation "was substantially justified." 28 U. S. C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). Section 2412(d)(1)(B) sets deadline 30 days after final judgment for filing fee application and directs include: (1) applicant is "prevailing party"; (2) "eligible receive award"; (3) statement "the amount sought, including itemized from any attorney . stating actual time expended rate" charged. 2412(d)(1)(B)'s second sentence further requires "allege was not Petitioner Scarborough prevailed before Appeals Veterans Claims (CAVC) disability benefits respondent Secretary Affairs. Scarborough's counsel filed timely costs pursuant 2412(d), eligible award. Counsel also stated total hours rates work. But failed initially allege, addition, 2412(d)(1)(B). moved dismiss on ground CAVC lacked subject-matter jurisdiction award because had make required no-substantial-justification allegation. immediately amended adding In interim between initial amendment, however, 30-day period expired. For sole reason, dismissed application. affirming, Federal Circuit held EAJA plainly unambiguously seeking under 2412(d) submit application, all enumerated allegations, within limit. This granted certiorari, vacated judgment, remanded case light Edelman v. Lynchburg College, 535 106. Edelman, upheld Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) regulation allowing amendment employment discrimination charge, Title VII Civil Rights 1964, add, deadline, required, but absent, verification. VII, explained, permitted "relation back" verification missing original filing. Id., at 115-118. On remand, adhered earlier decision, distinguishing that, VII's remedial scheme, laypersons often initiate process, whereas directed attorneys. appeals court observed requirements issue appear separate statutory provisions, while EAJA's contents are detailed same provision. distinguished holding Becker Montgomery, 532 757, pro se litigant's failure hand sign notice appeal nonjurisdictional, therefore curable, defect. noted Becker, pointed out, timing signature there were found rules. Held: A may be has run cure allege Government's substantial justification. Thus, as amended, qualifies consideration determination merits. Pp. 413-423. (a) Whether barred gaining authorized 2412(d)(1)(A) does concern federal courts' "subject-matter jurisdiction." Rather, it concerns mode relief (costs legal fees) ancillary plenary "jurisdiction [the civil] action" which made. See §§ 2412(b) (d)(1)(A); 38 7252(a). More particularly, current dispute presents question time. whether, when, (B) require Clarity would facilitated if courts litigants used label "jurisdictional" such claim-processing rules, only prescriptions delineating classes cases (subject-matter jurisdiction) persons (personal falling court's adjudicatory authority. Kontrick Ryan, 540 443, 454-455. describe what competent adjudicate, relates postjudgment proceedings auxiliary already 413-414. (b) Unlike must show (his party" status, "eligib[ility] award," statement"), "not justified" allegation imposes no proof burden applicant, simply or pleading requirement. So understood, applicant's akin Becker's requirement Edelman's Like those requirements, ten-word "think twice" prescription "stem[s] urge litigate irresponsibly," S., 116; time, functions shift prove justified," serve essential notice-giving function; aware, moment filed, defeat merits, will have allegation, therefore, should fatal where genuine doubt exists about who applying fees, court. 767. Moreover, lawyer's contingent reduced dollar award, see 5904(d)(1); Fee Agreements, note following 2412, curative complainant directly, fairly described boon his counsel. rejects assertion relation-back regime, now codified Rule Procedure 15(c), out place this context governs "pleadings," term encompass applications. approved doctrine EEOC neither "pleading" Rules. invention rulemakers. applied well Rules became effective, see, e. g., New York Central & Hudson River R. Co. Kinney, 260 340, 346. properly guides Court's here: "arose conduct, transaction, occurrence set forth attempted forth" Fed. Civ. Proc. 15(c)(2). 414-419. (c) argument 2412's waiver sovereign immunity liability conditioned meticulous compliance with each every States' Irwin Department Affairs, 498 89, 95, Franconia Associates States, 536 129, 145—in recognized limitation principles generally apply way they private parties—are enlightening issue. asserts unpersuasively do bear awards rules analogue litigation. Because many statutes create claims agencies defendants, Irwin's reasoning diminished instructive situations readily identifiable private-litigation equivalent. event, analogous fee-shifting applicable suits litigants. Finally, conclusion expose unfair imposition. never argued prejudiced relate back prejudice preclude operation first place. itself built-in check: disallows "special circumstances unjust." 419-423. 319 F. 3d 1346, reversed remanded. GINSBURG, J., delivered opinion Court, REHNQUIST, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, KENNEDY, SOUTER, BREYER, JJ., joined. THOMAS, dissenting opinion, SCALIA, joined, post, p. 423. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT APPEALS FOR FEDERAL CIRCUIT. Brian Wolfman cause petitioner. With him briefs Scott L. Nelson, Alan B. Morrison, Peter J. Sarda. Jeffrey P. Minear respondent. brief Solicitor General Olson, Assistant Attorney Keisler, Deputy Clement, Austin Schlick, William Kanter, August E. Flentje, Tim McClain. JUSTICE GINSBURG Court. 1 (EAJA Act) departs general rule lawsuit pays her own fees. Alyeska Pipeline Service Wilderness Society, 421 240, 257 (1975). Relevant here, States; entitlement provision, 2412(d)(1)(B), prescribes content applications specifies "within thirty action." sentence, provision identifies application's contents, particular, meets financial eligibility condition (in case, net worth "did exceed $2,000,000 filed," 2412(d)(2)(B)); accompanying itemization. instruction adds next sentence: "The [applicant] shall 2 Randall Affairs benefits. His award" required] statement." Pointing omission, opposition claim motion affirmed disposition. 3 petition certiorari question: justification? We hold permissible 4 * 5 Congress enacted EAJA, Pub. 96-481, Tit. II, 94 Stat. 2325, 1980 "to eliminate barriers prohibit small businesses individuals securing vindication their rights civil actions administrative brought Government." H. Rep. 96-1005, 9; Congressional Findings Purposes, 504 ("It purpose title diminish deterrent effect review of, defending against, governmental ."). Among other reforms, U.S.C. previously costs, expenses, parties added two new 2412 expressly authorize Government. First, made liable expenses extent common law terms statute specifically provides award." Second, rendered party's suit lie agency construction 2412(d). 6 adopted trial three years, 204(c); 1985, reenacted measure, without sunset 99-80, 99 183. id., 6(b)(2), 186. Congress' aim, converting temporary measure permanent one, ensure certain individuals, partnerships, corporations organizations deterred unjustified expense involved." 99-120, 4. 7 currently provides, relevant part: 8 "(d)(1)(A) Except otherwise provided statute, than addition awarded subsection (a),[1] incurred (other sounding tort), having action, unless finds justified special unjust. 9 "(B) shall, shows subsection, expert witness rate computed. 10 thus entitles party; "net did sought together account fourth instruction, requiring "allege" justified. B 11 July 9, 1999, petitioner Scarborough, Navy veteran, App. Pet. Cert. 41a-44a. Eleven later, applied, behalf, 4-5. himself gain recovery fee, ordinarily 20% veteran's past-due benefits, 5904(d)(1), Courts Administration 1992, 106 4513, 2412; Tr. Oral Arg. 6.2 12 Clerk returned too soon. 6-7. After issued noting postdecision motions expired, (the one here) setting forth, litigation; $2 million; description work performed since counsel's retention 1998. 8-9. requested $19,333.75 $117.80 costs. 9. applications, both second, "that [in litigation] respects, here disputed, filings met application-content requirements. 13 Again, premature, retained it, unfiled, until CAVC's then notified response due days. 10. receiving exhausting extension respond, 2. maintained, Record, Doc. 12, pp. 14 promptly paragraph government's defense Appellant's 11. Simultaneously, opposed Secretary's dismiss, urging omission plead "no justification" could cured jurisdictional 13, 1-2. June 14, 2000, asserted West, Vet. 530 (per curiam). 15 year-and-a-half affirmed. 273 1087 (2001). construed strictly favor Government, stated, effects partial immunity, rendering when pay. 1089-1090. view, "[t]he language plain unambiguous"; 1090 (citing 2412(d)(1)(B)). acknowledged Third Eleventh Circuits read days; allow later amendments perfect specifications 1090-1091 Dunn 775 2d 99, 104 (CA3 1985) (applicant need accounting sought), Singleton Apfel, 231 853, 858 (CA11 2000) million justified)). 16 decision Bazalo 150 1380 (1998), supplement establish, period, he qualified "party" meaning i. e., 2412(d)(2)(B). 1381. differed said, essentially complied basic needed "fles[h] details." 3d, 1092. 17 writ Appeals, (2002). 920 concerned relating 1964; allowed EEOC, passed, 42 2000e-5(b) (requiring charges "be writing oath affirmation"). regulation. we line "a long history practice," 116, filing, 18 remand panel, judges panel's unanimous Edelman. 1346 (2003). majority "remedial scheme" attorneys, "paternalistic protection." 1353 (internal quotation marks omitted). Circuit's Edelman—the charge charge—appear provisions. contrast, 1353. 757 (2001), no-substantial-justification-allegation additional ground: "[The] justification [allegation] forma requirement," "requires analyze record" "is portion basis itself." Reiterating "jurisdictional," "[n]oncompliance [was] fatal" 1355. 19 Chief Judge Mayer dissented. found, Becker." 1356. pathmarking decisions, regarded "substantially Bazalo." disincentive defend thereby deter it," concluded, "it apparent intend process averment." Ibid. 20 539 986 (2003), view division among whether outside justified, compare Singleton, 1346. reverse Appeals. II 21 clarify, first, us—whether 2412(d)(1)(A)—does (d)(1)(A) awardable "in [that] action"); 7252(a) ("The exclusive decisions Board Veterans' Appeals.").3 As recently observed: 22 "Courts, more occasionally [mis]used `jurisdictional' emphatic [claim processing] Classifying prescriptions, even rigid ones, heading `subject matter jurisdiction' can confounding. authority." 454-455 (2004) (citation, some internal marks, brackets 23 short, "classes cases," 455, adjudicate; instead, section Accordingly, indicates, provision's typed "jurisdictional." 24 turn reason why 2412(d)(1)(B).4 status statement" reporting computed"), applicant. It is, text conveys, nothing establishing indicates uniformly recognized, shouldered See, Pierce Underwood, 487 552, 567 (1988); 575 (Brennan, concurring part judgment); Davidson Veneman, 317 503, 506 (CA5 2003); Lauer Barnhart, 321 762, 764 (CA8 Libas, Ltd. 314 1362, 1365 (CA 2003). ("[T]he strong deterrents contesting exis[t] rest Government."). 25 not, want standard raise presumption lost ." By allocating justified"—and only—to apparently dispel assumption pay loses. Complementarily, serves ward off irresponsible litigation, unreasonable capricious demands. oral argument, applicants obliges them examine not." 31; (petitioner recognizes [is make] lawyer think twice"). affirmation 26 litigant typed, neglected sign, name, 11(a), appeal. 760-761, 763; supra, 411-412. Although called notices "linked provisions," 765 (referring 4), concluded add 11(a) 766-767. observed, "omission signature" "pleading, written motion, [or] paper" "corrected being attention party." 764. Permitting late appeal, hardly pathbreaking, "[o]ther opinions full harmony imperfections noticing appealing, appellate court." 767-768 Smith Barry, 502 244, 245, 248-249 (1992), Foman Davis, 371 178, 181 (1962)). 27 Term, our 116. involved permitting charge-filing include omitted, 109; 411. "There reason," sustaining regulation, relation less reasonable Becker. Both aimed stemming irresponsibly inform case. note, too, lapse "should app[lying] [for fees], advances purpose, enacting reduce "emphasi[s], virtually exclusion issues, [on] cost potential litigation" challenge unjust action. 7. 29 maintains 15(c) Procedure, context, Brief Respondent 21; 15(c)(2) (permitting pleadings arose [timely filed] pleading"). 7(a) (enumerating "pleadings"). acknowledges district urges settings. 28. Most recently, just related, to, respectively, concedes, moreover, 35-36, 1938, year effective. 346 (1922); Seaboard Air Line Renn, 241 290, 293-294 (1916); Missouri, K. T. Wulf, 226 570, 575-576 (1913). then-existing practice, Advisory Committee doctrine." Committee's 1937 Note Subd. 15, App., 686. Commentators embraces "has roots former equity practice number state codes." 6A Wright, A. Miller, M. Kane, Practice 1496, 64 (2d ed. 1990).5 doctrine, accordingly hold, allegation: Just verify paper," petitioners' so beyond repair.6 C 31 insists most strenuously judgment. 18-19; 28, Ardestani INS, 137 (1991) ("EAJA renders liable, amounts immunity."). clock specification. 15; 45.7 32 observe, reading unyielding Government's. Indeed, Bazalo, 1383-1384 (amendment establish million). noted, 412, judge indistinguishable. 1355-1356 (opinion Mayer, J.). 33 Our 89 (1990), 129 (2002), untimely complaint missed limits subject equitable tolling, 95.8 Similarly, Franconia, rejected "unduly restrictive" limitations Tucker Act, 1491. 145 omitted); ibid. (refusing adopt accrual rule" commencement Government). 34 "limitations `in that' parties." (quoting Irwin, 95). Once waives judicial suits, "amounts little, any, broadening congressional waiver." 95. responsible likely realistic assessment legislative intent practically useful principle interpretation." Ibid.9 35 nevertheless "[§] government litigation." 39. clear demands precise analogue. Litigation legislation creating matters peculiar engagements persons—matters administration benefit programs. 36 provisions abrogating resembles 1692k(a)(3) (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act); 2617(a)(3) (Family Medical Leave 1993); 2000e-5(k) (Title VII); cf. (comparing "contemporaneous tie date `first accrues'"). 37 finally, interests served, empowered outright deny request [a application] prejudiced."). 96-1418, (1980) (§ 2412(d)(1)(A)'s "safety valve" gives discretion considerations dictate made"). 39 reasons reversed, consistent opinion. 40 ordered. Notes: Subsection states: "Except 2412(a)(1) reduction applies Social Security cases, 186, large awards. Mecham, Annual Report Director Administrative Office 35-37 (1990) invoked jurisdiction— appealing Appeals' 1998 denying benefits—well fees; distinguishes fromTorres Oakland Scavenger Co., 312 (1988), relies. 11, 20, n. 3. Torres (each name) triggers appellate-court over 315, 317. All agree toallege regard, dissent sees fire flame. 424-425, nn. 3—court regulations— address plead, presented here. See,e. Equity (1912) furtherance justice, upon just, permit proceeding, record material supplemental pleading. court, stage disregard error defect proceeding affect parties."); Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 110, 170(1)-(2) (Smith-Hurd 1935) ("At cross demand up by, prescribed limited expired grew transaction ."); Wash. 308-3(4) (Remington 1932) ("A been counterclaim introduced adverse apprised nature regardless availability back," 36-39. support, points easily placed specifications. separate, contains limitation, asserts, significantId., contends, fact structured differently section's "allege," rather directing application" "sho[w]") viewed closely linked deadline. 38. question, suggests, answered Commissioner, INS Jean, 496 154 (1990). 24; 45. prevails recover services during positions regarding proper finding awarding contest itself. 160-162. Jean relies, "[a] contain `that justified,'" 160, like Jean's holding, confront. rests applicability explore debatable "show[ings]" us. offer situation tolling determined doctrine's specific facts ofIrwin. petitioner's excuse complaint—his absence office triggered complaint-filing received—ranked "at best [as] garden variety excusable neglect." 96. extensively argues recourse "rebuttable presumption" available 95; 32-41. grounds, express presented. expressed belief minimum, standards litigating 41 whom SCALIA joins, dissenting. Without deciding statutorily mandated "even `not justified' ante, 419, 6, nonetheless, omitted addressed textual matter, I conclude must. becomes appropriate defines scope immunity. allowance canon construe waiver. reaches today distorting eviscerating case's doctrinal underpinnings. 43 my better states shows": 2412(d)(2)(B); sought. provides: "shall also" links sentence.1 contained That satisfy order Immediately another Taking whole, quite natural requirements.2 And, confirmed numerous regulations,3 interpreted nearly identical adversary adjudications conducted agencies.4 44 (1991). such, construed. 94; Nordic Village, Inc., 503 30, (1992) (stating "must sovereign" enlarge[d] requires" omitted)); Library Shaw, 478 310, 318 (1986) (same); Lehman Nakshian, 453 156, 161 (1981) ("[L]imitations conditions consents sued exceptions thereto implied" omitted)). Since relied present simple canon, entitled "relate-back" 45 avoids straightforward Irwin. Ante, 420-422. perhaps narrow circumstances. manner are, holds "applicable suits." addressing explained "[t]ime lawsuits customarily `equitable tolling,'" "[o]nce [of immunity], making "[s]uch 46 Notwithstanding scope, concludes: "Irwin's equivalent." 422. existence "private-litigation equivalent," formed very 47 litigation," 39, litigation.5 analysis cannot and, avoid through doctrine. these reasons, respectfully dissent. "Also" defined "likewise," Webster's Ninth Collegiate Dictionary 75 (1991), manner," Black's Law 77 (6th 1990) Several explicitly Manual: Local 344-345 (West 2004) (CA2 "Local Form Application");id., 1474-1475 form "Application Fees Other Expenses Under [EAJA]"); 244-245 (CA1 39(a)(2)(D) identify alleges justified")); 699 47.8.2(a) thereof 1103 (CA9 39-2.1 justified")). 49 CFR 6.17(a) (2003) justified"); 17.11(a) Environmental Protection Agency] 18.11(a) Commerce] 21.31 ("In [a]n Education] position"); 14.200(a) ("An Housing Urban Development] 960.9(a) Postal justified"). 504(a)(2) disposition adjudication, section, attorney, agent, representing appearing behalf justified") Compare ("Except unjust") award")

Category: 5