Unpublished Disposition, 916 F.2d 716 (9th Cir. 1986)
Annotate this CaseNo. 87-6178.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Before FLETCHER and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges, and MUECKE,* District Judge.
MEMORANDUM*
Joe Aragon appeals the district court's denial of his application for attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. Because Aragon failed to file his EAJA application within the jurisdictional time limit, we vacate the judgment denying attorney's fees and remand for dismissal by the district court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
BACKGROUND
On June 1, 1982, Aragon filed an application for disability insurance benefits pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 423. An administrative law judge (ALJ) denied his application, and the Appeals Council affirmed the ALJ's decision on March 14, 1984. Two weeks later, Aragon filed a complaint in district court, seeking judicial review of the decision, and the district court remanded the case to the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary) for further administrative proceedings. On remand, the ALJ found that Aragon was in fact entitled to disability benefits, and the Appeals Council adopted this determination as the final decision of the Secretary on November 19, 1985.1
On May 5, 1986, Aragon filed a motion for attorney's fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412. The district court denied the motion, finding that the position of the Secretary in opposing disability benefits was "substantially justified" within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) (1). Aragon timely appealed the district court's denial. We withdrew this case from submission pending determination of similar issues in Melkonyan v. Heckler, 895 F.2d 556 (9th Cir. 1990).
DISCUSSION
A party requesting an award of attorney's fees under section 2412 must submit an application to the court "within thirty days of final judgment in the action." 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) (1) (B). The thirty-day time limit is jurisdictional; the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over untimely applications. Melkonyan v. Heckler, 895 F.2d at 557; see also Papazian v. Bowen, 856 F.2d 1455, 1455-56 (9th Cir. 1988).
As defined by the EAJA, a final judgment is "a judgment that is final and not appealable." 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) (2) (G). We explored the meaning of this definition in Melkonyan. There we held as follows:
[W]here, as here, the Secretary determines that the claimant was disabled as of the disability onset date that the claimant alleged in his original application, the 30-day period begins to run immediately upon the decision of the Appeals Council [adopting that determination].
895 F.2d at 558.
Melkonyan governs the case at hand. On November 19, 1985, the Appeals Council adopted the decision of the ALJ that Aragon became eligible for disability benefits as of July 8, 1980, the date he left government employment. This determination gave Aragon all the benefits he had ever requested and thus the award was no longer subject to appeal by either the Secretary or Aragon. See Melkonyan, 895 F.2d at 558. Aragon's application for attorney's fees was due thirty days later, or December 19, 1985, but he did not submit it to the district court until May 5, 1986. It therefore was untimely, and the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over it.
This appeal is resubmitted for decision. The judgment of the district court is VACATED and REMANDED with instructions to DISMISS.
Honorable C.A. Muecke, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3
By letter dated January 26, 1986 the Office of Disability Operations of the Social Security Administration sent a letter to Aragon with a copy to counsel setting forth the amount of past-due benefits that were due Aragon and advising that counsel had 60 days to claim fees up to 25% from the award under the Social Security Act
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.