Case Name: Gene S. GROVES, Claimant-Appellant, v. Eric K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-04-18
Citations: 417 F. App'x 983
Docket Number: No. 2010-7057
Parties: Gene S. GROVES, Claimant-Appellant, v. Eric K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before GAJARSA, SCHALL, and MOORE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 417
Pages: 983–984

Head Matter:
Gene S. GROVES, Claimant-Appellant, v. Eric K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 2010-7057.
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
April 18, 2011.
Before GAJARSA, SCHALL, and MOORE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
ORDER
Gene S. Groves moves for fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) incurred during his appeal before this court.
On November 15, 2010, this court granted the Secretary of Veterans Affairs' motion to remand Groves' appeal to allow the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims to rule on Groves' pending motion for reconsideration. Groves appeared before this court without representation. Groves subsequently filed this motion seeking $10,280.98 in total expenses and fees, including $9,962.50 for 79.7 hours of legal research at $125.00 per hour.
Pro se litigants like Groves are not eligible to recover attorney fees under EAJA. Naekel v. Dep't of Transp., F.A.A, 845 F.2d 976, 981 (Fed.Cir.1988) ("We conclude that neither EAJA nor the Back Pay Act authorizes payment to Mr. Naekel for the time spent acting pro se in his appeal to this court."); see also Hexamer v. Foreness, 997 F.2d 93, 94 (5th Cir.1993) (denying attorney fees under EAJA to pro se litigant); Demarest v. Manspeaker, 948 F.2d 655, 655-56 (10th Cir.1991) (same); Sommer v. Sullivan, 898 F.2d 895, 895-96 (2d Cir.1990) (per curiam), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 980, 111 S.Ct. 508, 112 L.Ed.2d 520 (1990) (same); Merrell v. Block, 809 F.2d 639, 642 (9th Cir.1987) (same). With regard to the additional amount Groves seeks for copying expenses and postage, this court's prior remand order did not award him costs and he has never submitted an itemized and verified bill.
Accordingly,
It Is Ordered That:
The motion is denied.