Owens v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

Filing 20

ORDER granting 17 Motion for Attorney Fees in the amount of $3,366.21 and $21.15 in expenses pursuant to EAJA. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 11/17/2021.(gnan )

5:21-cv-00884-BHH

Date Filed 11/17/21

Entry Number 20

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Debbie Owens,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Kilolo Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner
)
of Social Security Administration,
)
)
Defendant.
)
________________________________)

Civil Action No. 5:21-cv-884-BHH

This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees pursuant
to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. In the motion, Plaintiff
seeks attorney’s fees in the amount of $3,366.21 plus $21.15 in expenses. On November
16, 2021, Defendant filed a response to Plaintiff’s motion, notifying the Court that
Defendant does not oppose Plaintiff’s request.
Attorney’s fees may be awarded pursuant to EAJA 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 (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

5:21-cv-00884-BHH

Date Filed 11/17/21

Entry Number 20

Page 2 of 2

amended by P.L. 99-80, § 2(c)(2)(B).
After consideration, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 17) is
granted, and Plaintiff is awarded $3,366.21 in attorney’s fees and $21.15 in expenses
pursuant to EAJA. The Commissioner will determine whether Plaintiff has any outstanding
federal debt to be offset from the attorney’s fees, and if Plaintiff has no outstanding federal
debt, then the Commissioner will honor Plaintiff’s assignment of attorney’s fees to counsel
and make the check payable to Plaintiff’s counsel. However, if Plaintiff has outstanding
federal debt, then the Commissioner will make the check payable to Plaintiff directly and
deliver the check to the business address of Plaintiff’s counsel, and the amount of fees
payable to Plaintiff will be the balance of the stipulated attorney’s fees remaining after
subtracting the amount of Plaintiff’s outstanding federal debt. If Plaintiff’s outstanding
federal debt exceeds the stipulated amount of attorney’s fees, then the stipulated amount
will be used to offset that debt and no amount shall be paid to Plaintiff.1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce H. Hendricks
United States District Judge
November 17, 2021
Charleston, South Carolina

1

As the Supreme Court made clear in Astrue v. Ratliff, attorney’s fees under EAJA are made payable
to the prevailing litigant and not to the litigant’s attorney. 560 U.S. 586, 598 (2010) (holding that the plain text
of EAJA requires that attorney’s fees be awarded to the litigant, thus subjecting EAJA fees to an offset of any
pre-existing federal debts).

2