S.R. v. Colvin
ORDER granting 18 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden on 10/30/17. (ncb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
S.R., MINOR CHILD, By and Through
REBECCA PICKINGS (Grandmother) OBO,
ZURI TAMU PICKINGS (Deceased)
CAROLYN W. COLVIN
Acting Commissioner of Social Security
ORDER ON PETITION FOR ATTORNEY FEES
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion  for attorney fees 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 August 23, 2017, this Court remanded this case to the Commissioner
for further proceedings. Plaintiff now seeks attorney fees in the amount of $5,475.591 on the
grounds that she was the prevailing party and the Commissioner’s position was not
The Acting Commissioner opposes the adjusted, hourly rate sought by Plaintiff on the
ground that it is “excessive.” However, consistent with the Court’s ruling during a hearing held
in this matter on October 27, 2017, because the proposed, adjusted, hourly rate reflects a cost of
living increase found in the South Urban Consumer Price Index for the years at issue, the Court
finds the total amount requested is not unreasonable. The Court further finds that no special
circumstance would make the requested award unjust.
During a hearing held on the motion on 10/27/17, counsel for Plaintiff clarified that the $3,650.40 total
stated in the motion is a calculation error.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED:
That the Commissioner shall promptly pay to Plaintiff a total of $5,475.59 in attorney
fees for the benefit of counsel for Plaintiff.
This, 30th 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?