United States v. 2010-06-22 | 09-35257 | Verita Gill V. Commissioner Social Security |…

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral**
argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VERITA GILL, ) No. 09-35257
)
Plaintiff – Appellant, ) D.C. No. 3:07-CV-00812-HU
)
v. ) MEMORANDUM*
)
COMMISSIONER SOCIAL )
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, )
)
Defendant – Appellee. )
)
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael W. Mosman, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 7, 2010**
Portland, Oregon
Before: HALL, FERNANDEZ, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Verita Gill appeals the district court’s award of fees pursuant to the Equal
Access to Justice Act. 28 U.S.C. § 2412. We affirm.
FILED
JUN 22 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

See Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433–34, 103 S. Ct. 1933, 1939, 761
L. Ed. 2d 40 (1983); Comm’r, INS v. Jean, 496 U.S. 154, 163, 110 S. Ct. 2316,
2321, 110 L. Ed. 2d 134 (1990); Atkins v. Apfel, 154 F.3d 986, 988 (9th Cir.
1998).
See Atkins, 154 F.3d at 987.2
See Moreno v. City of Sacramento, 534 F.3d 1106, 1111 (9th Cir. 2008);3
Sorenson v. Mink, 239 F.3d 1140, 1145 (9th Cir. 2001); Cunningham v. County of
L.A., 879 F.2d 481, 484–85 (9th Cir. 1989).
See Moreno, 534 F.3d at 1116.4
2
Gill asserts that the district court erred when it determined that the number
of reasonably expended hours was less than the number actually expended by1
counsel. We disagree. We have reviewed the district court’s decision and the
record, and we are unable to say that the district court abused its discretion when it2
explained that, considering the nature and complexity of this case, it was
unreasonable for counsel to expend more than the forty hours the district court
allowed. Put another way, we have scrutinized the decision and the record with3
particular care because we insist that district courts eschew policies that turn into
substitutes for the exercise of their discretion, but that error did not occur here.4
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --