Jager

MEMORANDUM ***

Joan Jager appeals the district court’s denial of her motion under the Equal Access to Justice Act for attorneys’ fees accrued in connection with proceedings that led to a prior decision by this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412 ; Jager v. Barnhart, 192 Fed.Appx. 589 (9th Cir.2006). We reverse.

We review a district court’s denial of attorneys’ fees under the EAJA for abuse of discretion. See Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 559 , 108 S.Ct. 2541 , 101 L.Ed.2d 490 (1988). A district court abuses its discretion when it bases its ruling on “an erroneous view of the law or on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.” Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 405 , 110 S.Ct. 2447 , 110 L.Ed.2d 359 (1990).

The EAJA provides that, in claims against the government, “a court shall *28 award to a prevailing party other than the United States fees and other expenses ... unless the court finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified. 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (d)(1)(A). The government does not dispute that Jager is a prevailing party. See Shalala v. Schae-fer, 509 U.S. 292, 301 , 113 S.Ct. 2625 , 125 L.Ed.2d 239 (1993). The sole issue is whether the…