Hammons v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 31

ORDER granting #29 Plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees under the EAJA to the extent it seeks $3,067.20 in attorneys' fees. This award is subject to offset to satisfy any pre-existing debt that Plaintiff owes the United States of America pursuant to Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586. Plaintiff's motion is DENIED to the extent it requests that the fees be made payable directly to Plaintiff's counsel. Unless the Commissioner decides otherwise, the award shall be made directly to Plaintiff. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 9/12/16.(EJA)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Christopher Hammons,

10

Plaintiff,

11

Commissioner
Administration,

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-15-01620-PHX-JAT

13
14

of

Social

Security

Defendant.

15

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Christopher Hammons’ motion for attorneys’

16

fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d).

17

(Doc. 29). The Commissioner has no objection to Plaintiff’s motion. (Doc. 30). After

18

reviewing Plaintiff’s counsel’s statement of hours, and considering the relevant fee award

19

factors, see Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 429–30 & n.3 (1983), the Court finds

20

Plaintiff’s requested fee award of $3,067.20 to be reasonable. The Court will therefore

21

grant Plaintiff’s motion to the extent it seeks an award of attorneys’ fees.

22

Plaintiff also requests, however, that the fee award be made payable directly to his

23

counsel. (Doc. 29 at 4–5). Plaintiff purports that he validly executed an assignment of any

24

EAJA fee award to his counsel. (Id.) Plaintiff appears to understand that the Anti-

25

Assignment Act (the “Act”) prohibits such an assignment, and thus, requests that the

26

Court order the Commissioner to issue the award directly to Plaintiff’s counsel if the

27

Commissioner (1) determines that Plaintiff does not owe an existing debt to the federal

28

government and (2) waives the requirements of the Act. (Doc. 29-1 at 1).

1

In Astrue v. Ratliff, the Supreme Court of the United States construed § 2412(d)

2

and held that EAJA fees are payable to litigants and therefore subject to offsets when a

3

litigant has outstanding federal debts. 560 U.S. 586, 598 (2010). The Supreme Court

4

noted that the government has made direct payments to a litigant’s attorney “only in cases

5

where the plaintiff does not owe a debt to the government and assigns the right to receive

6

the fees to the attorney.” Id. at 597 (quotations and citations omitted). Since Ratliff,

7

district courts in other circuits have ordered fees to be paid directly to a litigant’s attorney

8

provided that the government is afforded an opportunity to offset any preexisting debt

9

owed by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff has assigned all rights in the fee award to counsel.

10

See Meyer v. Astrue, 2011 WL 4036398, at *3 (D. Minn. 2011).

11

Nonetheless, the Act forbids the assignment of claims against the United States

12

unless certain requirements are satisfied. See 31 U.S.C. § 3727. Namely, such an

13

assignment is permitted only: (1) “after a claim is allowed,” (2) when “the amount of the

14

claim is decided,” and (3) when “a warrant for payment of the claim has been issued.”

15

§ 3727(b). In this case, Plaintiff’s assignment was executed on August 12, 2015, well

16

before any EAJA claim was “allowed” or the amount “decided.” (Doc. 3 at 2). Because

17

Plaintiff’s assignment does not meet the Act’s requirements, and the Commissioner does

18

not appear to waive the Act’s provisions, the Court concludes that the assignment is

19

invalid as contrary to the Act. In any event, the determination of whether to pay

20

Plaintiff’s counsel directly “must be made by the Commissioner after confirming that

21

Plaintiff has assigned his right to fees and does not owe a debt that is subject to offset

22

under the Treasury Offset Program.” Zamora v. Colvin, No. CV-13-01970-PHX-DGC,

23

2014 WL 4388537, at *2 (D. Ariz. Sept. 5, 2014) (citing Ratliff, 560 U.S. at 594)

24

(emphasis added). Consequently, the Court will not order the Commissioner to pay the

25

EAJA fees directly to Plaintiff’s counsel.1

26

For the foregoing reasons,

27
28

1

The Commissioner may ultimately decide to pay the awarded fees directly to
Plaintiff’s counsel. The Court, however, will not order the Commissioner to do so.
-2-

1

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees under the EAJA,

2

(Doc. 29), is GRANTED to the extent it seeks $3,067.20 in attorneys’ fees. This award is

3

subject to offset to satisfy any pre-existing debt that Plaintiff owes the United States of

4

America pursuant to Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586. Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED to the extent it

5

requests that the fees be made payable directly to Plaintiff’s counsel. Unless the

6

Commissioner decides otherwise, the award shall be made directly to Plaintiff.

7

Dated this 12th day of September, 2016.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-3-