Court Opinion

ID: 9502324
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 18:49:44.407473+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:00:46.771742
License: Public Domain

STEINBERG, Judge,
concurring:
It would be well if the Secretary were not to view the disposition of this case as in any way vindicating the conduct of his representatives in this matter. Nothing put forth in the Secretary’s December 13, 2001, response explains or justifies the failure to withdraw his totally unfounded July 20, 2001, motion to dismiss the appellant’s EAJA application, despite three glaringly apparent opportunities to move for such withdrawal: Following the appellant’s July 23, 2001, reply; following the Court’s August 10, 2001, issuance of. its mandate; and following the appellant’s filing of the September 25, 2001, supplemental EAJA application. I hope that those involved in this matter for the Secretary have taken all feasible steps over the last year to prevent repetition of this type of inexplicable activity.