Opinion
98 C 1121
December 21, 2001
Mr. Krecioch has filed what is essentially a motion to reconsider my ruling on the bill of costs. I have reviewed both his reply brief [53] and the present motion [55], and I find that they have no merit. Mr. Krecioch, who litigated this matter pro se, contends that I should have awarded him $2800 in fees that he paid to a paralegal, but the weight of legal authority is against him for the reasons expressed in Cook v. Brown, 68 F.3d 447, 451 (Fed. Cir. 1995). See also Kooritzky v. Herman, 178 F.3d 1315 (C.A.D.C. 1999).
There is an additional argument that the paralegal fees should be awarded as "fees and expenses" for "the reasonable cost of any study [and] analysis" pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A). It is an interesting argument, and one which has yet to be definitively addressed by any circuit court, but, ultimately, I find the attempt to re-characterize the $2800 paralegal bill as a "cost of study" unpersuasive. This is especially true on the facts of this case, in which plaintiff specifically asserts that the work performed consisted of legal research ("an analysis of the complex Forfeiture Laws") and drafting of legal documents. The EAJA is a limited waiver of sovereign immunity, and must be strictly construed in favor of the government. See Cook, 68 F.3d at 449. So I will not award the paralegal fees.
As an aside, I note that the inmate paralegal who accepted (substantial) payment for performance of legal services (and signed an affidavit to that effect) did so in violation of Bureau of Prisons policy prohibiting inmates from conducting a business while incarcerated. He also admits to conduct which arguably violates the rule against practicing law without a license. See Nowicki v. Cooper, 56 F.3d 782 (7th Cir. 1995).
The motion [55] is denied.