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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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.
