Williams v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
ORDER granting 24 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Chief Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham on September 8, 2021.(cmp)
Case 1:20-cv-01154-tmp Document 26 Filed 09/08/21 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRIC COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURUITY,
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES
Before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees
under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”). (ECF No. 24.)
judicial review of Defendant Commissioner’s determination that
he was not disabled. A Remand Order was entered in this case on
June 23, 2021. (ECF No. 22.)
Under the EAJA, the court shall “award to a prevailing
party . . . fees and other expenses . . . incurred by the party
in any civil action . . ., including proceedings for judicial
review of agency action, brought by or against the United States
. . ., unless the Court finds that the position of the United
States was substantially justified or that special circumstances
Case 1:20-cv-01154-tmp Document 26 Filed 09/08/21 Page 2 of 3
§405(g), he qualifies as a prevailing party under the EAJA. The
Court concludes that there are no special circumstances that
would make an award unjust. Consequently, Plaintiff is entitled
to an award of attorney fees.
Plaintiff’s counsel has submitted his affidavit documenting
24.9 hours of work on this case.
Based on this documentation,
Plaintiff requests an award of attorney fees in the amount of
$5,179.44. The EAJA provides that “attorney fees shall not be
determines that an increase in the cost of living or a special
factor . . . justifies a higher fee.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A).
Plaintiff has requested an award at the hourly rate of $208.01
for 24.9 hours of work.
The increase in the hourly rate is
based on the rise in the cost of living since March 1996, when
the EAJA statutory rate was last increased.
The Court finds
that these requested rates and the number of hours expended are
$5,179.44, made payable to Plaintiff’s attorney, as Plaintiff
has assigned these funds to his attorney.
contingent upon a determination by the Government that Plaintiff
Case 1:20-cv-01154-tmp Document 26 Filed 09/08/21 Page 3 of 3
owes no debt(s) to the Government that is subject to offset. If
such a debt(s) exist, the Government may make the entire EAJA
fee payable to Plaintiff and then use the EAJA fee as an offset
to the debt. See 31 C.F.R. § 285.5(e)(6)(ii); Astrue v. Ratliff,
560 U.S. 586 (2010).
IT IS SO ORDERED this 8th day of September, 2021.
s/ Tu M. Pham
TU M. PHAM
CHIEF UNITED STATES 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?