22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4e1,MEMORANDUM Thomas O’Connell appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for attorneys fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”) following the district court’s decision vacating the agency’s denial of his application under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act and remanding for further proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for abuse of discretion, Tobeler v. Colvin, 749 F.3d 830, 832 (9th Cir.2014), and we vacate and remand. We are unable to review the district court’s order denying EAJA fees because the district court did not provide an explanation for- its decision that the government’s position was substantially justified. See Meier v. Colvin, 727 F.3d 867, 869-70 (9th Cir.2013); cf. Padgett v. Loventhal, 706 F.3d 1205, 1208 (9th Cir.2013) (“Without an adequate explanation by the district court, an appellate court is unable to determine if the district court abused its discretion.”). Accordingly, we vacate and remand the district court’s order denying EAJA fees. The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal. VACATED and REMANDED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T513,

MEMORANDUM

Thomas O’Connell appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for attorneys fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”) following the district court’s decision vacating the agency’s denial of his application under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act and remanding for further proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for abuse of discretion, Tobeler v. Colvin, 749 F.3d 830, 832 (9th Cir.2014), and we vacate and remand.

We are unable to review the district court’s order denying EAJA fees because the district court did not provide an explanation for- its decision that the government’s position was substantially justified. See Meier v. Colvin, 727 F.3d 867, 869-70 (9th Cir.2013); cf. Padgett v. Loventhal, 706 F.3d 1205, 1208 (9th Cir.2013) (“Without an adequate explanation by the district court, an appellate court is unable to determine if the district court abused its discretion.”). Accordingly, we vacate and remand the district court’s order denying EAJA fees.

The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.

VACATED and REMANDED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.