
    Confesora SANTIAGO, on behalf of herself and all others similar situated, and Philip Myrun, on behalf of himself and all others similar situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, Connecticut Department of Social Services and Patricia Wilson-Coker, Commissioner of Social Services, Plaintiffs, v. Michael O. LEAVITT, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellant..
    No. 04-0172.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Oct. 28, 2005.
    Gill Deford, Center for Medicare Advocacy, Inc., Willimantic, Connecticut (Judith A. Stein, Brad S. Plebani, Willimantic, Connecticut; Patricia Nemore, Washington, DC; and Keith Bradoc Gallant, Cummings & Lockwood, LLC, New Haven, Connecticut, on the brief), for PlaintiffsAppellees.
    Maite Barainca, Assistant Attorney General, Hartford, Connecticut, (Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General for the State of Connecticut, Thomas J. Ring and Richard J. Lynch, Assistant Attorneys General, on the brief), for Plaintiffs.
    Alisa B. Klein, Attorney, Appellate Staff, Civil Division, Department of Justice, Washington, DC (John A. Danaher, III, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut;) Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General; and Mark B. Stern, Attorney, Appellate Staff, Civil Division, on the brief; Alex M. Azar II, General Counsel, Sheree R. Kanner, Associate General Counsel, Henry R. Goldberg, Deputy Associate General Counsel, and Donald H. Romano, Senior Attorney, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, for Defendant-Appellant, of counsel.
    Present: WALKER, Chief Judge, FEINBERG, and WESLEY, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The defendant in the district court was then-Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson. We have substituted current Secretary Mike Leavitt for Thompson pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2).
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgment of the district court be and it hereby is REVERSED.

Defendant-appellant appeals from the district court’s award of attorneys’ fees to the class plaintiffs-appellees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). A 94-110. In a separate published opinion, we reverse the district court’s ruling in favor of plaintiffsappellees in its entirety. Conn. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. v. Leavitt, No. 03-6052.

Because plaintiffs-appellees have not prevailed on any of their claims, they are not prevailing parties within the meaning of the EAJA. They are therefore not entitled to attorneys’ fees. See Kerin v. U.S. Postal Serv., 218 F.3d 185, 189 n. 1 (2d Cir.2000) (“A prevailing party is one that has succeeded on any significant issue in the litigation which achieved some of the benefit the party sought in bringing suit (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted).

For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the District Court for the District of Connecticut is REVERSED.  