Jayne Mathews-Sheets v. Michael Ast, 653 F.3d 560

Plaintiff sought EAJA attorney’s fees of $25,200; district court reduced to $6,625 based on hours and rate.
Judge cut hours from 112/116 to 53, citing excessive time on extensions, fee petition, reply, and a two-page letter; biggest block (85.5 hours) for two briefs largely meritless.
Statute authorizes fees up to $125/hour unless inflation or a special factor justifies a higher rate; inflation adjustments must be case-specific.
Plaintiff argued CPI-based increase to about $170/hour; district court deemed the argument untimely and improper, but this ruling was later questioned on appeal.
Court held that inflation-based adjustment could be considered on remand if properly justified; enumerated special factors must be specialized to the case and not broad.
Assignment issue: EAJA fee payable to prevailing party or assignee; here plaintiff assigned rights to the attorney; government’s cross-appeal not filed, leaving judgment intact.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether COLA adjustment above $125/hour is justified	Plaintiff (via counsel) argues inflation supports higher rate	Government contends no automatic inflation adjustment; must be justified by case factors	Remand to determine if inflation justifies higher rate; not automatic on remand
Whether district court properly cut hours and reduced rate	Hours for various tasks reasonably incurred; requested $170–$225/hour	Hours and rate excessive; reductions warranted	Court may re-evaluate hours and rate on remand; initial reductions partly based on merit
Whether inflation must be tied to specific circumstances of the case	Cost of living adjustment justified by CPI-based increase in real terms	Inflation alone insufficient without case-specific justification	Inflation adjustment may be allowed only with case-specific justification on remand
Whether special factors beyond inflation/limited availability justify higher fee	Special factors exist due to limited availability of qualified counsel for such cases	Special factors narrowly construed and must be tied to area of law	Limited-availability factor requires case-specific relevance; not shown here on remand
Who may receive the EAJA fee in light of assignment	Plaintiff assigned rights to attorney; payment to attorney appropriate	Government could seek payment to plaintiff absent cross-appeal; complex jurisprudence	Proceedings consistent with assignment; remand does not disturb payment framework

Sullivan v. Hudson, 490 U.S. 877 (U.S. 1989) (EAJA scope and fee provisions in social security context)
Raines v. Shalala, 44 F.3d 1355 (7th Cir. 1995) (EAJA fees limited to judicial proceedings; context for SSA awards)
Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552 (U.S. 1988) (Special-factor standard for fee awards must be narrowly construed)
Floroiu v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 746 (7th Cir. 2007) (Inflation and special factors; statutory ceiling cautionary guidance)
Muhur v. Ashcroft, 382 F.3d 653 (7th Cir. 2004) (Special-factor/infation considerations in EAJA awards)
Headlee v. Bowen, 869 F.2d 548 (10th Cir. 1989) (Inflation considerations in calculating fees; regional context)