FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 05 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JIMMIE LEON MARTIN, No. 13-15619
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01017-CMK
v.
MEMORANDUM*
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Craig Kellison, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 18, 2014**
Before: D.W. NELSON, LEAVY, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Jimmie Leon Martin appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for
attorneys’ fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”). We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the district court’s order denying
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
a motion for attorneys’ fees under EAJA for an abuse of discretion. Tobeler v.
Colvin, 749 F.3d 830, 832 (9th Cir. 2014). We reverse and remand.
EAJA provides that in a Social Security case, a court shall award attorneys’
fees to a prevailing party other than the United States “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); Tobeler, 749
F.3d at 832. The government must demonstrate that both its litigation position and
the agency decision on review (that is, the administrative law judge’s decision)
were substantially justified. Campbell v. Astrue, 736 F.3d 867, 868 (9th Cir. 2013)
(order).
Martin sought attorneys’ fees after this court issued a memorandum
disposition reversing in part the district court’s summary judgment and remanding
with instructions for the district court to remand to the Commissioner. In Martin’s
prior appeal, we concluded that the ALJ “erred when formulating Martin’s residual
functional capacity (RFC) because the RFC neither incorporated [an examining
physician’s] opinion of Martin’s work limitations nor gave specific and legitimate
reasons for rejecting it.” Martin v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 472 Fed. App’x
580, 580 (9th Cir. 2012). We thus held that the ALJ’s decision was not supported
by substantial evidence. See Meier v. Colvin, 727 F.3d 867, 872 (9th Cir. 2012)
2
(holding that ALJ makes decision not supported by substantial evidence when he
fails to offer specific and legitimate reasons for rejecting a physician’s opinion);
Valentine v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d 685, 690 (9th Cir. 2009)
(holding that ALJ makes decision not supported by substantial evidence when he
formulates RFC that fails to take into account claimant’s limitations). Because the
ALJ’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence, it was not substantially
justified. See Meier, 727 F.3d at 869. We therefore reverse the district court’s
order and remand for an award of fees and costs.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
3