Case: 23-1839 Document: 18 Page: 1 Filed: 12/07/2023

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ GENE S. GROVES, Claimant-Appellant v. DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF VETER- ANS AFFAIRS, Respondent-Appellee ______________________ 2023-1839 ______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 17-3084, Chief Judge Margaret C.

Bartley. ______________________ Decided: December 7, 2023 ______________________ GENE S. GROVES, Shafter, TX, pro se.

AUGUSTUS JEFFREY GOLDEN, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus- tice, Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also repre- sented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, CLAUDIA BURKE, PATRICIA M.

MCCARTHY. ______________________ Case: 23-1839 Document: 18 Page: 2 Filed: 12/07/2023

2 GROVES v. MCDONOUGH

Before MOORE, Chief Judge, DYK and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Gene S. Groves appeals a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) denying in part Mr. Groves’ application for fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d).

For the following reasons, we affirm.

BACKGROUND In July 2017, the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) denied Mr. Groves’ claim for vocational rehabilitation and employment benefits. Appx. 1–2. 1 Mr. Groves appealed the Board’s decision to the Veterans Court, paying a $50 filing fee. Id. at 1, 19. The Veterans Court affirmed the Board’s decision. Groves v. McDonough, 33 Vet. App. 368, 379–83 (2021) (Groves I). Mr. Groves appealed to this Court, paying a $500 filing fee. Appx. 2, 21. We vacated and remanded. Groves v. McDonough, 34 F.4th 1074, 1078–81 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (Groves II). On remand, the Vet- erans Court set aside the Board’s decision and remanded to the Board to make the necessary findings of fact con- sistent with Groves II. Appx. 2.

Mr. Groves filed an EAJA application with the Veter- ans Court seeking a total of $74,375—$550 for filing fees and $73,825 for “[c]omputer legal/records research” and “EAJA research”. Id. at 15–18. The Veterans Court granted-in-part Mr. Groves’ application in the amount of $550 for filing fees. Id. at 1–5. The Veterans Court denied Mr. Groves’ reimbursement request for time he spent con- ducting legal research because pro se non-attorney time de- veloping claims is not compensable under EAJA. Id. The

Case: 23-1839 Document: 18 Page: 3 Filed: 12/07/2023

GROVES v. MCDONOUGH 3

Veterans Court also denied Mr. Groves’ request for sanc- tions. Id. at 4–5. Mr. Groves appeals.

DISCUSSION Our jurisdiction over decisions of the Veterans Court is limited. Under 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a), we may review “the validity of a decision of the [Veterans] Court on a rule of law or of any statute or regulation . . . or any interpretation thereof (other than a determination as to a factual matter) that was relied on by the [Veterans] Court in making the decision.” Except with respect to constitutional issues, we “may not review (A) a challenge to a factual determination, or (B) a challenge to a law or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular case.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2).

On appeal, Mr. Groves argues the Veterans Court mis- interpreted EAJA to bar pro se appellant recovery for non- attorney research and litigation time. Appellant’s Informal Opening Br. 1. We have jurisdiction because Mr. Groves’ argument raises a legal question of statutory interpreta- tion. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a). “We review the Veterans Court’s interpretation of EAJA de novo.” Kelly v. Nicholson, 463 F.3d 1349, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

We agree with the Veterans Court’s interpretation. We have previously held pro se litigants are not entitled to at- torney fees, including compensation for non-attorney time preparing for litigation, under EAJA. See Naekel v. Dep’t of Transp., 845 F.2d 976, 980–81 (Fed. Cir. 1988). 2 The

4 GROVES v. MCDONOUGH

Veterans Court therefore did not err in denying Mr. Groves’ request for legal research compensation. 3 CONCLUSION We have considered Mr. Groves’ remaining arguments and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Veterans Court’s denial of Mr. Groves’ request for legal research fees.

AFFIRMED COSTS No costs.

Groves v. Shinseki, 417 F. App’x 983, 983 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (non-precedential) (“Pro se litigants like Groves are not el- igible to recover attorney fees under EAJA.”). We caution Mr. Groves that repeatedly making already resolved argu- ments could give rise to sanctions in a future case.

Mr. Groves was given an opportunity to respond to the Sec- retary of Veterans Affairs’ arguments by filing a reply brief. Appx. 34–36.