- 14 -
se litigants mileage and parking fees. Liberman v. Commr. of
Soc. Sec., 232 F. Supp. 2d 18, 20 (E.D.N.Y. 2002) (in addition to
items specifically listed in the statutory language, “courts
permit [pro se] litigants to recover telephone, postage, travel,
and photocopying costs under the EAJA”); March v. Brown, 7 Vet.
App. 163, 170 (1994) (a pro se litigant may, if a prevailing
party, recover “all * * * ‘expenses [including postage and
transportation costs] ordinarily arising in the course of
providing legal services’ to a client”, quoting Cook v. Brown,
6 Vet. App. 226, 237-240 (1994)). But see Kooritzky v. Herman,
6 F. Supp. 2d 1, 13 (D.D.C. 1997) (awarded pro se litigant
photocopying costs but not taxi fares and postage), revd. on
other grounds 178 F.3d 1315 (D.C. Cir. 1999).
In cases under the attorney’s fee award provisions of EAJA,
as in this case involving section 7430, the Government has
resisted any award of various out-of-pocket costs even when the
costs were incurred by attorneys on behalf of their clients.
Most courts have rejected such a narrow reading of the statutory
provisions and generally have allowed such out-of-pocket costs to
be recovered. In Intl. Woodworkers of Am., Local 3-98 v.
Donovan, 792 F.2d 762, 767 (9th Cir. 1986), the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals, to which an appeal in this case would lie,
stated that the “expenses enumerated in [EAJA] are set forth as
examples, not as an exclusive list” and awarded postage, courier,
telephone, and attorney travel costs as “routine under all other
fee statutes”. See also, e.g., Kelly v. Bowen, 862 F.2d 1333,
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011