Court Opinion

ID: 9907848
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-07 15:00:45.701325+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:07:57.384135
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-1839    Document: 18     Page: 1   Filed: 12/07/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                   GENE S. GROVES,
                   Claimant-Appellant

                             v.

   DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF VETER-
                ANS 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 Jus-
 tice, Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also repre-
 sented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, CLAUDIA BURKE, PATRICIA M.
 MCCARTHY.
                  ______________________
Case: 23-1839    Document: 18     Page: 2   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 Vet-
 erans Court set aside the Board’s decision and remanded
 to the Board to make the necessary findings of fact con-
 sistent with Groves II. Appx. 2.
     Mr. Groves filed an EAJA application with the Veter-
 ans 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 con-
 ducting legal research because pro se non-attorney time de-
 veloping claims is not compensable under EAJA. Id. The

     1  “Appx.” refers to the appendix attached to Re-
 spondent’s Informal Brief.
Case: 23-1839     Document: 18      Page: 3    Filed: 12/07/2023

 GROVES v. MCDONOUGH                                          3

 Veterans Court also denied Mr. Groves’ request for sanc-
 tions. 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 mis-
 interpreted EAJA to bar pro se appellant recovery for non-
 attorney research and litigation time. Appellant’s Informal
 Opening Br. 1. We have jurisdiction because Mr. Groves’
 argument raises a legal question of statutory interpreta-
 tion. 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 at-
 torney 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: 4   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 el-
 igible to recover attorney fees under EAJA.”). We caution
 Mr. Groves that repeatedly making already resolved argu-
 ments could give rise to sanctions in a future case.
     3    Mr. Groves asserts his Fifth Amendment due pro-
 cess rights were violated because he was not afforded an
 opportunity to address disputes regarding his EAJA appli-
 cation and make appropriate corrections. We do not agree.
 Mr. Groves was given an opportunity to respond to the Sec-
 retary of Veterans Affairs’ arguments by filing a reply
 brief. Appx. 34–36.