Court Opinion

ID: 9372084
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-17 19:01:23.147807+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:32.683041
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 17 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SANYA LEE MEMBE,                                No.    22-35152

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 6:20-cv-00896-MK

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner
of Social Security,

                Defendant-Appellee.

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Oregon
                 Mustafa T. Kasubhai, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted February 7, 2023**
                                Portland, Oregon

Before: M. SMITH, FORREST, and SUNG, Circuit Judges.

      Plaintiff-Appellant Sanya Lee Membe appeals the partial denial of her

application for fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C.

§ 2412(d). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
      A district court “always retain[s] substantial discretion in fixing the amount

of an EAJA award,” Comm’r, INS v. Jean, 496 U.S. 154, 163 (1990), given “the

district court’s superior understanding of the litigation and the desirability of

avoiding frequent appellate review of what essentially are factual matters.” Hensley

v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437 (1983). We review the district court’s decision for

abuse of discretion, which occurs when the district court applies an incorrect legal

standard or its application of the correct standard is “illogical, implausible or without

support in inferences that may be drawn from the facts in the record.” Meier v.

Colvin, 727 F.3d 867, 869–70 (9th Cir. 2013).

      Because the district court in this case reduced the number of hours for which

it awarded fees by 20 to 25 percent, it was required to explain its reasoning with

specificity. See Moreno v. City of Sacramento, 534 F.3d 1106, 1111–12 (9th Cir.

2008). In doing so, district courts should examine case-specific factors including the

record size, procedural history, issue complexity, and when counsel was retained.

Costa v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 690 F.3d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 2012).

      Here, the district court adequately explained its reasoning and did not abuse

its discretion. It was not illogical for the judge to rely on his experience and

familiarity with the litigation in concluding that the record size was not abnormal1

      1
       The district court’s reference to the record being “approximately 1,700
pages” might have been a scrivener’s error, but regardless, it was harmless error.

                                           2
or that the issues in the case are familiar because they “are frequently litigated.” Nor

was it error to decline to survey hours found reasonable in other cases or cite

nonbinding case law. See Costa, 690 F.3d at 1136 (questioning the usefulness of

surveying other cases to decide reasonableness of hours spent on a matter). In sum,

the district court sufficiently explained that it excluded 20 hours from its calculation

because the issues presented were not complex, counsel was experienced and

knowledgeable, and the record was not abnormally long.2

      AFFIRMED.

Membe primarily alleged that the ALJ erred at step three and does not argue that
her case involved issues requiring detailed review of all, or even most, of the record.
       2
         We deny the Commissioner’s request that we take judicial notice of the EAJA
database maintained by the Administrative Conference of the United States. ECF
No. 17. The database is not relevant to our decision. See Santa Monica Food Not
Bombs v. City of Santa Monica, 450 F.3d 1022, 1025 n.2. (9th Cir. 2006) (declining
to take judicial notice of documents irrelevant to resolution of the appeal). However,
we grant the Commissioner’s request that we take judicial notice of district court
orders issued after this appeal was filed, ECF No. 34, as these dispositions are
relevant to understanding the full procedural history of this case. See Reyn’s Pasta
Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, Inc., 442 F.3d 741, 746 n.6 (9th Cir. 2006).

                                           3