Craig v. Social Security Administration

Filing 17

ORDER approving attorney fees in the amount of $3,888.00; directing the EAJA fees be paid in accordance with Astrue v. Ratliff; and directing Defendant to certify said award and pay Plaintiff's attorney this amount. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe on 8/6/2013. (srw)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JONESBORO DIVISION JOHN LEE CRAIG, Plaintiff, vs. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration * * * * * * * * * No. 3:12CV00076-JJV Defendant. ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Application for Attorney’s Fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. Plaintiff’s counsel requests $3,888.00, representing 21.6 attorney hours at $180 an hour. The Commissioner responded and objects to the fees requested. The Commissioner believes counsel should be awarded $165 an hour and explains in her Response how she comes to that conclusion. However, the Court is perplexed why the Commissioner objects to $180 an hour in this case when the Commissioner routinely considers an hourly rate of $181 to be “reasonable.” See e.g., Davis v. Astrue, 2:12-CV-00121; Collins v. Astrue, 1:09-CV-00026; Alley v. Astrue, 3:10-CV-00265; Ford v. Astrue, 3:11-CV-00002; George v. Astrue, 2:10-CV-00204; Propes v. Astrue, 3:11-CV-00049. Therefore, after careful consideration of the Motion and Response, the Court finds: 1. The hours spent by counsel were reasonable. Therefore the Court approves attorney fees in the amount of $3,888.00 (21.6 attorney hours at $180.00). 2. The award of EAJA fees shall be paid in accordance with Astrue v. Ratliff, --- U.S. ----, 130 S.Ct. 2521, 2527, 2010 WL 2346547 (2010). 3. Defendant shall certify said award and pay Plaintiff’s attorney this amount. 1 IT IS SO ORDERED this 6th day of August, 2013. __ ________________________________ JOE J. VOLPE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?