(SS) Porter v. Commissioner of Social Security ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTHONY SHANE PORTER, Case No. 1:22-cv-00369-AWI-CDB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ON STIPULATED MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEY FEES AND 13 v. EXPENSES PURSUANT TO THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, 28 U.S.C. § 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 2412(d) AND 28 U.S.C. § 1920 15 Defendant. (Docs. 25, 26) 16 17 18 Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulated motion for award of attorney’s fees 19 pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), and costs pursuant 20 to 28 U.S.C. § 1920. (Docs. 25, 2626). The parties agree to an award of attorney’s fees to 21 Plaintiff Anthony Shane Porter (“Plaintiff”) counsel, Jonathan O. Peña, in the amount of 22 $1,433.19 pursuant to EAJA, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). Id. at 1. 23 On March 6, 2023, the Court granted the parties’ stipulated motion for a voluntary remand 24 and remanded the case pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to the Commissioner for 25 further administrative proceedings. (Doc. 24). Judgment was entered the same day. Id. On June 26 5, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Attorney Fees. (Doc. 25). Then, on June 7, 2023 Plaintiff 27 filed the pending stipulation for attorney fees. (Doc. 26). 1 Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 300-02 (1993) (concluding that a party who wins a sentence- 2 four remand order under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) is a prevailing party). Plaintiff’s request is timely. 3 Van v. Barnhart, 483 F.3d 600, 607 (9th Cir. 2007). The Commissioner does not oppose the 4 requested relief. (Doc. 26). 5 The EAJA provides for an award of attorney fees to private litigants who both prevail in 6 civil actions (other than tort) against the United States and timely file a petition for fees. 28 7 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). Under the EAJA, a court shall award attorney fees to the prevailing 8 party unless it finds the government’s position was “substantially justified or that special 9 circumstances make such an award unjust.” Id. Here, the government did not show its position 10 was substantially justified and the Court finds there are not special circumstances that would 11 make an award unjust. Moreover, the government does not oppose Plaintiff’s stipulated request. 12 See Sanchez v. Berryhill, No. 1:16-cv-01081-SKO, 2018 WL 509817, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 13 2018) (finding position of the government was not substantially justified in view of the 14 Commissioner’s assent to remand); Knyazhina v. Colvin, No. 2:12–cv–2726 DAD, 2014 WL 15 5324302, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2014) (same). 16 Plaintiff requests an award of $1,433.19 in EAJA fees. (Doc. 26). The Ninth Circuit 17 maintains a list of the statutory maximum hourly rates authorized by the EAJA, adjusted for 18 increases in the cost of living, on its website. See Thangaraja v. Gonzales, 428 F.3d 870, 876-77 19 (9th Cir. 2005). Even assuming Plaintiff’s counsel seeks the published maximum hourly rate 20 (234.95),1 the requested award would amount to approximately six hours of attorney time (not 21 accounting for any paralegal time expended). The Court finds this reasonable and commensurate 22 with the number of hours an attorney would need to have spent on this case. See generally (Doc. 23 15). With respect to the results obtained, Plaintiff’s counsel obtained a favorable judgment 24 remanding the case for further administrative proceedings. (Doc. 24). 25 EAJA fees, expenses, and costs are subject to any offsets allowed under the Treasury Offset 26 Program (“TOP”), as discussed in Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010). If the Commissioner 27 1 Statutory Maximum Rates Under the Equal Access to Justice, available at 1 | determines upon effectuation of this order that Plaintiff's EAJA fees are not subject to any offset 2 | allowed under the TOP, the fees shall be delivered or otherwise transmitted to Plaintiffs counsel. 3 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED: 4 1. Plaintiff's stipulated request for attorney’s fees pursuant to the EAJA (Doc. 26) is 5 GRANTED; 6 2. Plaintiff's motion for attorney fees (Doc. 25) is DENIED AS MOOT; and 7 3. The Commissioner is directed to pay to Plaintiff as the prevailing party attorney fees in 8 the amount of $1,433.19. Unless any offsets are applied under TOP, the government shall 9 make payment of the fees to Plaintiff's counsel Jonathan O. Pefia, in accordance with 10 Plaintiff's assignment of fees and subject to the terms of the stipulation. 11 | IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ June 8, 2023 | MwrrD ha 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28