Wayne McGinty v. Michael Astrue

MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff-Appellant Wayne Lee McGinty (“McGinty”) appeals the district court’s denial of his request for attorney’s fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”). He contends that the government’s “position” was not “substantially justified.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (d)(1)(A). It is undisputed that McGinty is the “prevailing party” for purposes of the EAJA, having secured a reversal of the decision of the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) and a remand. See Gutierrez v. Barnhart, 274 F.3d 1255, 1257 (9th Cir.2001).

“The decision whether to award fees under the EAJA, including the district court’s conclusion that the government’s position was substantially justified, is reviewed for abuse of discretion.” Id. at 1258 . The government’s position was substantially justified if it had “a reasonable basis both in law and in fact.” Meinhold v. United States Dep’t of Def., 123 F.3d 1275 , 1277 (9th Cir.), amended by 131 F.3d 842 (9th Cir.1997). As the Supreme Court has explained, “substantially justified” does not mean “ ‘justified to a high degree,’ but rather [means] ‘justified in substance or in the main’ — that is, justified to a degree that could satisfy a…