F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
APR 29 1998
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
ELGIN L. HARTTER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 97-3115
(D.C. No. 95-4184-RDR)
KENNETH S. APFEL, Commissioner, (D. Kan.)
Social Security Administration, *
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT **
Before BRORBY, BARRETT, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
*
Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43(c), Kenneth S. Apfel is substituted for
John J. Callahan, former Acting Commissioner of Social Security, as the
defendant in this action.
**
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
This appeal requires us to differentiate between remands pursuant to
sentences four and six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) in the context of an application for
attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412.
Plaintiff Elgin L. Hartter brought this action challenging the Commissioner’s
denial of his claim for Social Security disability benefits. On the Commissioner’s
motion, which was based partly on Hartter’s submission of new evidence, the
district court remanded the matter to the Commissioner, ostensibly pursuant to the
fourth sentence of § 405(g). Obtaining a sentence-four remand ordinarily makes a
party a prevailing party, and on that basis, Hartter filed an application for attorney
fees under the EAJA. The district court denied the application on the merits, see
Hartter v. Chater, 963 F. Supp. 956 (D. Kan. 1997), and Hartter appeals. We
conclude that the court’s remand for further administrative proceedings was not a
true sentence-four remand because it did not modify or reverse the
Commissioner’s decision denying benefits. The remand thus did not make Hartter
a prevailing party for EAJA purposes. We therefore vacate the district court’s
judgment.
-2-
I
In February 1993, Hartter applied for disability insurance benefits, claiming
disability due to post-traumatic stress disorder related to his Vietnam War
experiences. The application was denied by an administrative law judge at step-
five of the sequential process for determining disability. See 20 C.F.R.
§ 404.1520. Hartter sought review from the Appeals Council, accompanying his
request with additional notes and an opinion from his treating psychiatrist that
had not been provided to the ALJ. The Appeals Council denied review.
Hartter then filed a complaint in the district court seeking review of the
Commissioner’s decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The Commissioner
answered. In his opening brief, Hartter argued that the Commissioner’s decision
was incorrect because the Commissioner failed to properly consider the opinions
of his treating physicians. Alternatively, Hartter requested that the case be
remanded to the Commissioner, pursuant to the sixth sentence in § 405(g), for
consideration of a treating psychologist’s report issued after initiation of the
district court proceedings. Before the Commissioner filed a response brief,
Hartter moved to supplement the record with additional medical evidence
unavailable at the time he filed his opening brief, and, again, alternatively
requested a sentence-six remand for consideration of the new evidence. After
reviewing the “[ALJ’s] decision, Tenth Circuit law, and the additional evidence
-3-
submitted after the ALJ’s decision,” the Commissioner filed his own motion to
remand the case for the ALJ’s “further consideration [of] the opinions of
plaintiff’s treating physicians” and updated medical evidence. Appellant’s App.
Vol. I at 73. In his supporting memorandum, the Commissioner stated that
the necessity for remand of this case was not discovered until the
case reached defendant’s legal counsel for briefing. Remand would
expedite administrative review, ensure that the Commissioner
properly considers plaintiff’s claim, and could make judicial review
unnecessary.
For the above-stated reasons, and pursuant to the Supreme
Court’s decision in Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292 (1993),
defendant requests the Court to enter final judgment pursuant to
Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure remanding this case
pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Entry of the final
judgment remanding this case will begin the appeal period which
determines the 30-day period during which a timely application for
attorney fees under the EAJA may be filed.
Id. at 73-74 (emphasis added). In his reply brief, Hartter concurred with the
motion for remand and did not challenge the Commissioner’s request that it be
pursuant to sentence four. He also contended, apparently in the alternative, that
because the record prior to the Appeals Council’s denial of review already
supported his entitlement to benefits, the remand order should include “an
additional direction by the Court to grant and award the plaintiff’s requested
benefits, finding that the prior denial by the administrative agency was not
substantially justified.” Id. at 70. The district court agreed to the remand, but
rejected Hartter’s request for an “additional direction,” ordering only that
-4-
[t]his action is hereby remanded to the Appeals Council for further
proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The
Clerk is directed to enter final judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 58.
Id. at 68. The court’s judgment directing the remand also ordered that Hartter
recover his costs from the Commissioner. See id. at 67; see also Fed. R. Civ. P.
54(d)(1) (“[C]osts other than attorneys’ fees shall be allowed as of course to the
prevailing party unless the court otherwise directs.”) (emphasis added).
Within thirty days following the court’s judgment, Hartter filed his
application for EAJA fees. The EAJA provides in part that when a party prevails
in a civil action against the United States challenging administrative actions, the
“court shall award to a prevailing party” its fees and other expenses “unless the
court finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified or
that special circumstances make an award unjust.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A).
In its decision denying Hartter’s application, the court noted that the “sentence
four remand makes the plaintiff a prevailing party under the EAJA.” Hartter, 963
F. Supp. at 958. The court denied the application because it concluded that the
Commissioner’s position was substantially justified.
In reaching this conclusion, the court does not intend to suggest that
we believe the Commissioner’s final decision was supported by
substantial evidence, only that the position taken prior to its motion
for remand and as a basis for the remand was substantially justified.
The court believes that the new evidence filed by the plaintiff tipped
the scales and required reevaluation of the Commissioner’s findings.
-5-
Id. at 959. Hartter then filed motions to reconsider, to amend, and to vacate the
court’s order denying EAJA fees. The court denied all three motions.
II
On appeal, both parties argue the merits of the district court’s
determination that the Commissioner’s position in denying benefits to Hartter was
substantially justified, thus precluding the award of attorney fees under the EAJA.
Underlying both parties’ arguments, and the district court’s analysis, is the
presumption that the district court’s remand of the case to the Commissioner for
further proceedings made Hartter a prevailing party for EAJA purposes. It is
ordinarily true that “a judgment reversing and remanding a case to the
[Commissioner] for additional proceedings under sentence four of 42 U.S.C.
§ 405(g) . . . makes a plaintiff a prevailing party for purposes of the EAJA.”
Goatcher v. Chater, 57 F.3d 980, 981 (10th Cir. 1995). The problem here is that
we do not have a true sentence-four remand.
Under § 405(g), there are only two possible types of remands--those under
sentence four and those under sentence six. See Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S.
89, 99 (1991). 1
1
Sentences four and six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) provide:
“[4] The [district] court shall have power to enter, upon the pleadings
(continued...)
-6-
Under sentence four, a district court may remand in conjunction with
a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the [Commissioner’s]
decision. Under sentence six, the district court may remand in light
of additional evidence without making any substantive ruling as to
the correctness of the [Commissioner’s] decision, but only if the
claimant shows good cause for failing to present the evidence earlier.
Id. at 99-100 (footnote omitted). 2 The remand order here contains aspects of both
types. Like a sentence-four remand, the court entered judgment rather than
retaining jurisdiction over the matter. See Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 297
(1993) (“Immediate entry of judgment (as opposed to entry of judgment after
postremand agency proceedings have been completed and their results filed with
1
(...continued)
and transcript of the record, a judgment affirming, modifying, or
reversing the decision of the [Commissioner], with or without
remanding the cause for a rehearing. . . . [6] The court may, on
motion of the [Commissioner] made for good cause shown before he
files his answer, remand the case to the [Commissioner] for further
action by the [Commissioner], and it may at any time order additional
evidence to be taken before the [Commissioner], but only upon a
showing that there is new evidence which is material and that there is
good cause for the failure to incorporate such evidence into the
record in a prior proceeding; and the [Commissioner] shall, after the
case is remanded, and after hearing such additional evidence if so
ordered, modify or affirm his findings of fact or his decision, or both,
and shall file with the court any such additional and modified
findings of fact and decision, and a transcript of the additional record
and testimony upon which his action in modifying or affirming was
based.”
2
The omitted footnote refers to the other basis for a sentence-six remand--a
motion by the Commissioner before he or she files an answer. As in Melkonyan,
that basis for remand is not implicated in this case.
-7-
the court) is in fact the principal feature that distinguishes a sentence-four remand
from a sentence-six remand.”). And of course, the court labeled its remand
a sentence-four remand.
Significantly, however, like a sentence-six remand, the court did not make
any substantive ruling “modifying or reversing” the Commissioner’s decision.
Cf. Melkonyan, 501 U.S. at 98 (concurring with parties that “the remand order in
this case was not entered pursuant to sentence four, as the District Court did not
affirm, modify, or reverse the [Commissioner’s] decision”); Pettyjohn v. Shalala,
23 F.3d 1572, 1575 (10th Cir. 1994) (“Because the district court’s order was a
substantive reversal based upon the correctness of the [Commissioner’s] decision,
it was a sentence four remand.”). In fact, the court declined to grant Hartter’s
request to reverse or modify the Commissioner’s decision and to award benefits.
Moreover, it expressly refrained from making any substantive ruling or
identifying anything that the Commissioner did wrong. See Hartter, 963 F. Supp.
at 959 (“[T]he court does not intend to suggest that we believe the
Commissioner’s final decision was supported by substantial evidence, only that
the position taken . . . was substantially justified.”). 3
3
As explained earlier, it was the Commissioner who expressly requested a
sentence-four remand. Not surprisingly, the Commissioner did not ask the district
court to modify or reverse his decision denying benefits. However, the basis for
the Commissioner’s request for remand also did not fit precisely under sentence
(continued...)
-8-
Regardless of how we label the remand, this last point is the most critical
for present purposes. Prevailing party status is a threshold requirement to
recovery under the EAJA, and to obtain that status, a plaintiff must have
“‘succeeded on any significant issue in litigation which achieve[d] some of the
benefit . . . sought in bringing suit.’” Schaefer, 509 U.S. at 302 (quoting Texas
State Teachers Ass’n v. Garland Indep. Sch. Dist., 489 U.S. 782, 791-92 (1989)).
“The touchstone of the prevailing party inquiry must be the material alteration of
the legal relationship of the parties . . . .” Garland, 489 U.S. at 792-93. Hartter
does not satisfy the threshhold prevailing party requirement of the EAJA when the
district court only remands the case and makes no substantive ruling on the
Commissioner’s decision. The remand allowed the Commissioner to consider
new evidence, but the district court did not rule on the correctness of the
Commissioner’s decision to deny benefits. It thus did not change the legal
relationship between the parties. Hartter “achieved only another bite at the
apple.” Jackson v. Chater, 94 F.3d 274, 277-78 (7th Cir. 1996) (holding that
remand for ALJ to take additional evidence, though construed as a sentence-four
3
(...continued)
six, as it was only “primarily based” on new material evidence. See Hartter,
963 F. Supp. at 959 (quoting Commissioner’s brief in opposition to EAJA fees,
Appellant’s App. Vol. I at 46).
-9-
remand, did not make plaintiff prevailing party, where remand order did not
reverse Commissioner’s position).
Led by the Commissioner, the district court appears to have thought it had
jurisdiction to entertain Hartter’s timely fee application without first considering
whether Hartter was a prevailing party. Indeed, in moving for the remand, the
Commissioner stated that “[e]ntry of the final judgment remanding this case will
begin the appeal period which determines the 30-day period during which a timely
application for attorney fees under the EAJA may be filed.” Appellant’s App.
Vol. I at 74. A timely application is a jurisdictional prerequisite, see United
States v. 819.98 Acres of Land, 78 F.3d 1468, 1470 n.1 (10th Cir. 1996); United
States v. 27.09 Acres of Land, 1 F.3d 107, 111 (2d Cir. 1993), but prevailing
party status is also jurisdictional. While the Commissioner has never argued in
this court or the district court that Hartter is not a prevailing party, we disagree
with Jackson, 94 F.3d at 278, that it is an issue that can be waived.
“The EAJA is a waiver of sovereign immunity and therefore must be
strictly construed.” Estate of Smith v. O’Halloran, 930 F.2d 1496, 1501 (10th
Cir. 1991). Prevailing party status is a prerequisite to that waiver. See Heeren v.
City of Jamestown, 39 F.3d 628, 631 (6th Cir. 1994). Allowing the Commissioner
to “waive” the prevailing party requirement would be tantamount to allowing him
to expand the waiver of sovereign immunity, which he cannot do. See United
-10-
States v. Murdock Mach. & Eng’g Co., 81 F.3d 922, 933 (10th Cir. 1996)
(“‘[O]fficers of the United States possess no power through their actions to waive
an immunity of the United States or to confer jurisdiction on a court in the
absence of some express provision of Congress.’”) (quoting United States v. New
York Rayon Importing Co., 329 U.S. 654, 660 (1947)); 27.09 Acres of Land,
1 F.3d at 111 (rejecting government’s argument that it could waive prematurity of
EAJA application).
Because Hartter was not a prevailing party, the district court did not have
subject matter jurisdiction to consider his EAJA fee application. We therefore
must vacate the district court’s order denying the application and direct the
district court to dismiss the petition.
The judgment of the district court is VACATED, and the case is
REMANDED for entry of an order dismissing the EAJA application.
Entered for the Court
Mary Beck Briscoe
Circuit Judge
-11-