Hampton v. Colvin
ORDER granting 20 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden on 10/4/17. (ncb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
COMMISSIONER, UNITED STATES
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
ORDER ON PETITION FOR ATTORNEY FEES
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion  for attorney fees and costs pursuant to the
Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). In these proceedings Plaintiff
sought judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner’s final decision denying a claim for
benefits. By Final Judgment  dated June 22, 2017, this Court remanded this case to the
Commissioner for further proceedings. Plaintiff now seeks attorney fees in the amount of
$6,273.47, which represents 3.3 hours of work in 2016 at a rate of $195.37/hour and 27.5 hours
of work in 2017 at a rate of $197.50/hour, along with costs in the amount of $400.00, on the
grounds that she was the prevailing party and the Commissioner’s position was not
The Commissioner objects to the requested award on the sole ground that Plaintiff used
the incorrect consumer price index (CPI) table to calculate the adjusted statutory hourly rate
under the EAJA. In his reply brief  Plaintiff’s counsel agrees the correct CPI table for
calculation of the adjusted hourly rate for attorney fees in this District is the South Urban CPI
table and that the appropriate hourly rate for work performed in 2016 is $190.86, and $193.92 for
The Court agrees with the adjusted hourly rates agreed upon by the parties and,
accordingly, finds an award of $5,962.64 in fees is reasonable and appropriate and that no
special circumstance would make the requested award unjust.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED:
That the Commissioner shall promptly pay to Plaintiff a total of $5,962.64 in attorney
fees and $400.00 in costs for the benefit of counsel for Plaintiff.
This 4th day of October, 2017.
/s/ Jane M. Virden
U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?