Cheney v. Colvin
Filing
30
ORDER granting 29 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Magistrate Judge Clifford J. Proud on 5/5/2015. (jmt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
MARGARET A. CHENEY,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
vs.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Defendant.
Civil No. 14-cv-677-CJP
ORDER
PROUD, Magistrate Judge:
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees.
(Doc. 29). Defendant has not filed a response, and the time for doing so has now
expired.
Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. §2412(d)(1)(A), the
Court shall award attorney’s fees and expenses to a prevailing party in a civil
action against the United States, including proceedings for judicial review of
agency action, unless the government’s position was substantially justified. The
hourly rate for attorney’s fees is not to exceed $125.00 per hour “unless the court
determines that an increase in the cost of living or a special factor, such as the
limited availability of qualified attorneys for the proceedings involved, justifies a
higher fee.” §2412(d)(2)(A).
This case was remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings
pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. §405(g).
Plaintiff is, therefore, the
prevailing party. See, Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 302 (1993).
1
Counsel seeks a total of $3,655.73. Relying on the Consumer Price Index,
counsel seeks to be paid at an hourly rate of $188.44. He has also submitted
evidence indicating that $188.44 per hour is in line with the prevailing rate in the
community for similar services.
The Court finds that counsel has made a
sufficient showing that he is entitled to an hourly rate of $188.44. See, Sprinkle
v. Colvin, 777 F.3d 421 (7th Cir. 2015).
The Commissioner has not argued that her position was substantially
justified so as to defeat plaintiff’s claim under the EAJA, or challenged the
appropriateness of the hourly rate and the number of hours claimed.
The Court deems the failure to respond to plaintiff’s motion to be an
admission of the merits thereof. SDIL-LR 7.1. Accordingly, the Court finds that
plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to the EAJA,
and that the hourly rate and number of hours claimed are reasonable. See,
Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees (Doc. 29) is hereby GRANTED. The
Court awards plaintiff attorney’s fees in the amount of $3,655.73 (three
thousand, six hundred fifty-five dollars and seventy-three cents) as fees and costs.
The amount awarded is payable to plaintiff and is subject to set-off for any
debt owed by plaintiff to the United States, per Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S.Ct. 2521
(2010).
However, any part of the award that is not subject to set-off to pay
plaintiff’s pre-existing debt to the United States shall be made payable to plaintiff’s
attorney pursuant to the EAJA assignment previously executed by plaintiff and
her attorney. See, Doc. 29, Ex, 3.
2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: May 5, 2015.
s/ Clifford J. Proud
CLIFFORD J. PROUD
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
3
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?