Document: 509 U.S. 292 113 S.Ct. 2625 125 L.Ed.2d 239 Donna E. SHALALA, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Petitionerv.Richard H. SCHAEFER. No. 92-311. Argued March 31, 1993. Decided June 24, Syllabus * In 1986, respondent Schaefer filed a claim for Social Security disability benefits, which was denied by petitioner at the administrative level. sought judicial review and, on April 4, 1989, District Court reversed denial benefits remanded case to pursuant fourth sentence 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). awarded remand in July 1990, he returned attorney's fees under Equal Access Justice Act (EAJA). opposing motion, noted that EAJA required file his application within 30 days "final judgment" action, 28 2412(d)(1)(B), argued 30-day clock began running when Court's sentence-four order 1989 became final, would have occurred end 60 appeal provided Federal Rule Appellate Procedure 4(a). The Schaefer, holding is not final judgment where court retains jurisdiction plans enter after proceedings are complete. Appeals affirmed same basis. Held: 1. period filing an begins immediately upon expiration time "sentence-four order." Pp. ____. (a) A district remanding four 405 must may retain over remand. Sentence four's plain language authorizes "with or without cause rehearing," without" judgment. (b) decision Sullivan v. Hudson, 490 877, 892, 109 2248, 2258, 104 941—that incurred during held court's be recovered EAJA—does apply ordered (c) Contrary dicta claimant who obtains reversing Secretary's meets description "prevailing party" set out Texas Teachers Assn. Garland Independent School Dist., 489 782, 791-792, 1486, 1493, 103 866. 2. Schaefer's nonetheless timely 2412(d)(1) because failed comply with Civil 58 entering its 1989. EAJA's limit runs from appeal, does begin until entered compliance formalities 58. Because never formal judgment, neither nor had run application. P. 960 F.2d 1053 (CA8 1992) affirmed. SCALIA, J., delivered opinion Court, REHNQUIST, C.J., WHITE, O'CONNOR, KENNEDY, SOUTER, THOMAS, JJ., joined. STEVENS, concurring BLACKMUN, William K. Kelley, Washington, DC, pro hac vice, special leave petitioner. Randall J. Fuller, Anoka, MN, respondent. SCALIA Court. 1 This concerns proper timing (EAJA) case. Under 405(g), has right seek Services denying benefits. One possible outcome such suit court, will "a . [and] rehearing." issue here whether order," sometime 2 Richard Title II Act, 49 Stat. 622, as amended, 401 et seq. (1988 ed. Supp. III). He level, against authorized cross-motions summary On committed three errors ruling stating "the insurance [Schaefer] reversed, parties' denied, further consideration light this Order." App. Pet. Cert. 27a. 3 accordance order, reconsidered granted. 18, EAJA. response, any "within thirty action," relevant remand, become 2, 1990. stayed action pending imminent Melkonyan Sullivan, 501 ----, 111 2157, 115 78 (1991). 4 announced shortly thereafter, could constitute purposes 2412(d)(1)(B). Id., S.Ct., 2162. Melkonyan, changed positions argue (not remand) Thus, concluded, expired 3, year before filed. however, found controlling circuit precedent Welter 941 674 1991), retain[s] plan[s] dispositive judgmen[t]" 675. went rule entitled $1,372.50 fees. 5 fared no better appeal. Eighth Circuit declined suggestion en banc reconsideration Welter, unpublished per curiam opinion. petition certiorari, urging us reverse summarily. We granted 506 594, 121 532 (1992), oral argument. 6 first 2412(d)(1)(B) provides: 7 "A party seeking award other expenses shall, submit shows prevailing eligible receive subsection, amount sought, including itemized statement attorney expert witness representing appearing behalf actual expended rate were computed." (Emphasis added.) 8 we term highlighted phrase above "refers judgments law, encompass decisions rendered agency." See U.S., only resulted starting proceedings. 9 cases reviewing agency exclusive methods courts forth six margin.1 supra, ---- 2163-2164. correctly concedes four.2 argues, proceeding provision need but postpone it completion That argument, inconsistent four, Finkelstein, 496 617, 629, 110 2658, 2666, 563 (1990). Immediate entry (as opposed postremand been completed their results court) fact principal feature distinguishes sentence-six - 2164-2165. 10 Nor if includes judgment"—as 2412(d) —upon If true, there (including those suffer fate remand). eight 405(g) states "[t]he court"—which reference since 405(g)—"shall except shall subject manner civil actions." appellate run, fits squarely used 2412(d), defined mean appealable." 2412(d)(2)(G). described law complete accuracy said: 11 "In cases, ('affirming, modifying, reversing') so longer appealable. completed, returns enters runs." 2165. raises two arguments merit discussion. based our 2257, (1989), "to effectuate Hudson," contends, properly hold abeyance (and thereby delay start clock) complete; otherwise, far yet-to-be-held concerned, unable requirement fee include sought" "an [of] expended" attorneys experts. argues Hudson applies run. difficulty that, itself clearly involved 12 last point, right. Given facts recited four. 880-881, 2252; cf. n. supra. However, also show terminated case, retained And central element decision, penultimate shows: 13 "We conclude orders litigation continuing determine claimant's entitlement integral part 'civil action' review, thus representation available limitations EAJA." 2258 (emphasis added). 14 made clear, retention jurisdiction, failure terminate error: "each [is] reviewable separate piece litigation," "terminate[s] action" decision. 624-625, 2663 (emphases What adjudicated words, hybrid: improperly (but objection) treated like remand.3 specifically limited "narrow class qualifying proceedings" therefore do consider binding remands they should be) challenged.4 15 second argument cannot considered requires "show[ing] [he] party." showing, complete, "prevail" premise wrong. No ever prevailing-party status (under 2412(d)(1)(B)) plaintiff won Dicta stated not, general matter, meaning merely proceedings." 887, 2255. But (like case) simply recognize distinction between terminates victory plaintiff, not. sharp types lower-court opinions see 839 1453 (CA11 1988); O.T.1988, 616, pp. 17a-20a (setting opinion), included question presented decision,5 mentioned closing pages reply brief, Reply Brief Petitioner O.T. 1988, 14-17. It —specifically Finkelstein Melkonyan—which establish sentence-four, crucial structure established 626, 2664; 2162-2163. 16 Hudson's generally confer relied none supports proposition applied remands. Hanrahan Hampton, 446 754, 758-759, 100 1987, 64 670 (1980), rejected assertion status, virtue having secured obtained favorable procedural (the reversal directed verdict) course Hewitt Helms, 482 755, 107 2672, 96 654 (1987), obtaining plaintiff," id., 763, 2677 (A course, plaintiff.) third cited 866 affirmatively wins party. "[i]f succeeded significant achieve[d] some benefit bringing suit." 1493 (citation internal quotation marks omitted). Obtaining certainly description. Farrar Hobby, 566, 494 (1992). III 17 Finally, even connection Secretary, remains did entered, agree. 18 An becomes "not appealable"—i.e., ended. §§ (d)(2)(G); 4(a) Rules establishes federal officer party, "entry judgment," "entered Rul[e] Procedure." Fed.R.App.Proc. 4(a)(1), (7). 58, turn, every "on document" provides "[a] effective forth." United States Indrelunas, 411 216, 220, 93 1562, 1564, 36 202 (1973) (per curiam). 19 Since ante, ____, "separate entered. clear record done. dispute needed quite 1291; Bankers Trust Co. Mallis, 435 381, 98 1117, 55 357 (1978) curiam); 628, 7, 2665, irrelevant. beginning. Absent remained "appealable" fees, 2412(d)(1).6 20 For foregoing reasons, 21 Affirmed. 22 whom BLACKMUN joins, 23 one, Services' claims determination Administration (Agency) (a so-called "sentence-four" remand), claimants otherwise (EAJA), reimbursement holding, understanding, consistent jurisprudence areas 886-887, 2255, "[n]o all [the claimant] absent successful conclusion proceedings," 889, 2256. 24 Two Terms later, (1991), applications issues order. ----. obvious tension Hudson; makes little sense knows she securing 25 how best reconcile cases. reject Government's rather bizarre proposal requiring achieve protective then update amend 26-30, left essentially alternatives. can overrule endorse 's once path followed majority. Alternatively, repudiate reaffirm understanding decided Hudson: services Agency completed. several Courts struggled Melkonyan.1 approach accords underlying my view, common sense, I affirm Appeals, reasoning well. 26 major contrary today distinction, EAJA, 405(g).2 Legal "sentence-six" recoverable suggests, whereas more two, most definitely recoverable. Ante, While dichotomy superficial purporting "harmoniz[e] provisions 'final judgment' trigger period," 2165,3 directly contradicts, admonition repeated [EAJA] construed purpose realities Government." 630, 889-890, 27 As explained above, determined find unpersuasive attempt distinguish previously characterized "for intents identical," 886, 2255; 9.4 Nevertheless, secures nothing than instructing try again undermine one Hudson. is, premise. stood broader grounds, continue believe why legal performed coverage EAJA: think principles persuasive [Pennsylvania v.] Delaware Valley [Citizens' Council, 478 546, 106 3088, 92 439 (1986),] [New York Gas Light Club, Inc. Carey [, 447 54, 2024, 723 (1980),] here. Valley, 'crucial vindication [respondent's] rights.' [478 U.S.] 561[, 3096]. [T]he necessary both ensure themselves, prepare verify compliance. addition, Carey, endeavor interpret statute statutory designed effectuate. 'mandatory' nature here, close relation difficult ascribe Congress intent throw lifeline knew foot short. Indeed, incentive system create abandon counter long ethical canons profession. American Bar Association, Model Professional Conduct, 1.16, pp 53-55 (1984). anomalous result, frustration very behind itself, lightly assumed intended it. Christiansburg Garment EEOC, 434 412, 418-419[, 694, 699, 54 648] (1978). contemplate ongoing part, allows 'any 2412(d)(1)(A), statute, read 'to diminish deterrent effect of, defending against, governmental action,' 94 2325, permits Administration." 2256-2257. 29 solely law. common-sense allowing recovery permitting awarding accorded Congress' passing statute. sound eminently reasonable undermined (1990) drew To sure, accompany starts unlike interpreting invalidating regulations decision" 1291 immediate Secretary. was, careful note "appealability," 628-629, 8, 8. More directly, expressly respondent's invitation import into analysis appealability 2666. 31 course. drawn eligibility blurred; imported wholecloth which, again, concerned 1291, crafted rigid referred concomitantly 32 opinion, dicta. force appealability, difference viewed, be, Regardless six, dependent lawyer's secure entitled. anything, important effectuating goals frequently occurs seeks present new evidence aware made. 2664. many added attributed wrongful unjustified remand; necessarily means error. sent back proceedings, therein, precisely reasons articulated these circumstances covered 33 Claimants Government conceded different steps taken award: (1) order; (2) prevail (3) appropriate disavow hold, below Circuits,5 that: 34 "[W]hen contemplates additional merits discretion completed." Hafner 972 249, 252 1992). 35 while agree respectfully disagree syllabus constitutes prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Lumber Co., 200 321, 337, 282, 287, 50 L.Ed. 499. Sentences provide: "[4] [district] power enter, pleadings transcript record, affirming, rehearing. [6] may, motion good shown files answer, showing material incorporate prior proceeding; remanded, hearing ordered, modify findings both, modified testimony modifying affirming based." Sentence-six situations: requests answering complaint, new, adduced agency. (sentence six); 2163-2164, (1991); 2664, fit either situation. object endorsed practice accommodating lower actually awarded. 12-13. Those precedents highly Government, relieved liability ultimately denied. war view—expressed later brief—that action. 16. Essentially, wanted ways: regard determining improper STEVENS says "overrul[es]" (1989). Post, accurate characterization. six. ____ infra, limiting "overrule" part. Brecht Abrahamson, 507 1710, 1718, 123 353 (1993). contradiction subject. resolving it, chosen Melkonyan's grounded text statutes, particularly 405. formulated petition, certiorari was: "Whether conducted 'adversary adjudications' [EAJA]." p. I. STEVENS' prevailed judgment." original). By judgment; just doing so. error but, detailed text, rules statutes impose burden assert untimeliness defense, suggestion, post, favor provide See, e.g., 1992); Labrie 976 779, 785 (CA1 Gutierrez 953 579, 584 (CA10 room hybrids neatly category. referring four," assumes "authorizes 'with without' Ironically, come learn 2412, part: "(d)(1)(A) [A] brought unless finds position substantially justified make unjust. "(B) sought. allege justified." "[I]n dictate receipt normally attain 'prevailing party' 2412(d)(1)(A) result known. situation identical addressed 754 [100 670] (1980). There verdict defendants render plaintiffs interim 1988. 'procedural evidentiary rulings' themselves 'matters shifting counsel 1988.' 759 1990]. recently State 782 [109 866] indicated 791-793 1493]. 760 [107 2675, 654] (1987). vast majority conclusion. Paulson Bowen, 836 1249, 1252 (CA9 Swedberg 804 432, 1986); Brown [747 878] 880-881 [ (3d Cir.1984) ]." 1,

Category: 5