Amaro v. Colvin

Filing 35

ORDER denying 29 Motion for an award of Attorney Fees. Signed by Senior Judge Frederick J Martone on 12/1/2015.(TCA)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Johnny D. Amaro,
Plaintiff,

10
11

vs.

12
Carolyn W. Colvin,
13
Defendant.
14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV-12-213-PHX-FJM
ORDER

15
16
The court has before it plaintiff’s Motion for an award of attorney’s fees (doc. 29), the

17
18

government’s Response (doc. 30), and plaintiff’s Reply (doc. 33).

19

Plaintiff is entitled to fees only if the government’s position was not substantially

20

justified. I have reviewed my Order of October 23, 2012 (doc. 18) and the panel’s

21

Memorandum disposition of June 3, 2015 (doc. 26). Respectfully, I am not persuaded that

22

the panel’s conclusions are more reasonable than my own. There is a responsible difference

23

of opinion here. This is not uncommon in social security cases in this circuit.

24

Being the prevailing party on appeal is not sufficient to warrant a fee award. Plaintiff

25

must show that the government’s position was not substantially justified. Here, I am of the

26

view that the government’s position was more than substantially justified.

27

///

28

///

1
2
3

Accordingly, it is ORDERED DENYING the plaintiff’s Motion for an award of
attorney’s fees. (Doc. 29).
DATED this 1st day of December, 2015.

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-