Holmes v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 33

ORDER granting 29 First MOTION for Attorney Fees Under EAJA, granting the stipulated fee in the amount of $3,878.55. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 01/27/2015.(bshr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Jamieka Renee Holmes,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner
of the Social Security Administration,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-3430-BHH

ORDER

This matter is before the court on the plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees (ECF
No. 29) for the successful representation of the plaintiff Jamieka Renee Holmes (“the
plaintiff”) by Attorney Beatrice E. Whitten in the underlying Social Security benefits
action. The Court may make such an award pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice
Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. §2412(d).
In her Motion for EAJA Fees, the plaintiff requests an award of $4,132.89 in
attorney’s fees because she was the “prevailing party” and she claims that the position
taken by the defendant was not “substantially justified.”

(ECF No. 36.)

A joint

stipulation for payment of attorney’s fees was filed by the parties on January 16, 2015
(ECF No. 37) , which provides for attorneys fees in the amount of $3,878.55.
The EAJA provides attorney’s fees in actions where the government’s position is
not substantially justified. The substantial justification test is one of reasonableness in
law and fact. See Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 565, 108 S.Ct. 2541, 101
L.Ed2d 490 (1988).

The district court has broad discretion to set the attorney fee

amount. “[A] district court will always retain substantial discretion in fixing the amount of

an EAJA award. Exorbitant, unfounded, or procedurally defective fee applications . . .
are matters that the district court can recognize.” Hyatt v. North Carolina Dep’t of
Human Res, 315 F.3d 239, 254 (4th Cir. 2002) (citing Comm’r v. Jean, 496 U.S. 154,
163 (1990)). Moreover, the court should not only consider the “position taken by the
United States in the civil action,” but also the “action or failure to act by the agency upon
which the civil action is based.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(D), as amended by P.L. 99-80,
§ 2(c)(2)(B).
Accordingly, the court grants the stipulated fee, and directs the Commissioner to
pay directly to the plaintiff $3,878.55 in attorney’s fees. Such payment shall constitute a
complete release from and bar to any and all further claims that the plaintiff may have
under the EAJA to fees, costs, and expenses incurred in connection with disputing the
Commissioner’s decision. This award is without prejudice to the rights of the plaintiff’s
counsel to seek attorney fees under section 206(b) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C.
§ 406(b), subject to the offset provisions of the EAJA.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
January 27, 2015
Greenville, South Carolina.

2