Tedford v. Berryhill

Filing 21

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 19 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roy Percy on 4/29/19. (cs)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
OXFORD DIVISION
VICTORIA ROCHELLE TEDFORD

PLAINTIFF

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:18-CV-113-RP

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

DEFENDANT

ORDER
Plaintiff seeks an award of attorney’s fees of $5,275.62 paid pursuant to the Equal Access
to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. Section 2412(d). Docket 19. Consistent with the Order
Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Docket 3), Plaintiff also requests the
filing fee expense of $400.00, and reimbursement of the $24.00 paid to the U.S. Marshals
Service for service of process. Id.
Defendant does not object to the amount of fees requested but does object to Plaintiff’s
request that the award of fees be made directly to Plaintiff’s counsel. Docket 20. Defendant
asserts that under Astrue v. Ratliff, attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act must be
made payable to Plaintiff. Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S.Ct. 2521 (2010).
Citing 42 U.S.C. §1915(f)(1), the Commissioner opposes Plaintiff’s request for the filing
fee costs, stating that “an award for such costs against the United States is barred in this case.”
Id. Section 1915(f)(1) states “[j]udgment may be rendered for costs at the conclusion of the suit
or action as in other proceedings, but the United States shall not be liable for any of the costs
thus incurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (f)(1).
The Court in Clements v. Colvin explained that “[c]ourts interpreting this statute have
consistently held that costs cannot be award against the United States in an in forma
pauperis appeal.” Clements, No. 3:15CV20-DAS, 2015 WL 6554482, at *2 (N.D. Miss. Oct. 29,

2015). However, the Clements Court acknowledged the inherent contradiction between the
EAJA and the in forma pauperis statute this precedent creates. “The objective of the EAJA is
clear: to eliminate the financial disincentives for those who would defend against unjustified
governmental action and thereby to deter the unreasonable exercise of Government authority.”
Id. (quoting United States v. Claro, 579 F.3d 452, 466 (5th Cir.2009)). Similarly, the in forma
pauperis statute “is designed to ensure that indigent litigants have meaningful access to the
federal courts, and that no citizen shall be denied an opportunity to commence, prosecute, or
defend an action, civil or criminal, in any court of the United States, solely because ... poverty
makes it impossible ... to pay or secure the costs' of litigation.” Id. (internal citations omitted).
Yet, in this context, § 1915 prevents a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis from recovering
costs incidental to litigation from the United States of America. The Clemson Court recognized
that “[u]nder this framework, truly indigent litigants are faced with a Hobson's choice: either
proceed in forma pauperis and forfeit their rights under the EAJA, or forfeit their rights under §
1915 (if possible) and recover the costs they incurred defending against unjustified government
action.” Id.
Acknowledging this quandary, Plaintiff’s request for reimbursement of the $24.00 fee
paid to the U.S. Marshals Service for service of process is denied, and Plaintiff is relieved of the
obligation to pay the $400 filing fee to the Clerk of Court. Plaintiff’s motion for an EAJA award
is granted, and Plaintiff is entitled to $5,275.62 in attorney’s fees. It is
ORDERED
That Defendant pay Plaintiff $5,275.62 in attorney’s fees for a total EAJA award of
$5,275.62. This award is to be paid to Plaintiff for the benefit of his attorney, Thomas U.
Reynolds.

SO ORDERED, this the 29th day of April, 2019.
/s/ Roy Percy _______________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE