(SS) Graham 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 ADRIAN GRAHAM, Case No. 1:21-cv-01822-AWI-CDB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ON STIPULATION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEY FEES PURSUANT TO THE 13 v. EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) AND FOR COURT COSTS 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1920 15 Defendant. (Do. 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 for court costs 20 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920. (Doc. 26). The parties agree to an award of attorney’s fees to 21 Plaintiff Adrian Graham’s (“Plaintiff”) counsel in the amount of $7,600.00 pursuant to EAJA, 22 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), and costs in the amount of $402.00 under 28 U.S.C. § 1920. Id. 23 On October 6, 2022, Plaintiff requested Andrew T. Koenig be substituted as his counsel. 24 (Doc. 14). The Court granted Plaintiff’s request on October 11, 2022. (Doc. 15). On January 25 20, 2023, the Court granted the parties’ stipulated motion for a voluntary remand and remanded 26 the case pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to the Commissioner for further 27 administrative proceedings. (Doc. 24). Judgment was entered the same day. (Doc. 25). Plaintiff 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 did not oppose the 4 requested relief. (Doc. 22). 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 $7,600.00 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- 19 77 (9th Cir. 2005). Even assuming Plaintiff’s counsel seeks the published maximum hourly rate 20 for 2022 ($234.95),1 the requested award would amount to approximately 33 hours of attorney 21 time (not accounting for any paralegal time expended). The Court finds this reasonable and 22 commensurate with the number of hours an attorney would need to have spent reviewing the 23 voluminous certified administrative record in this case (1609 pages) and preparing a motion for 24 reconsideration. (Doc. 21). With respect to the results obtained, Plaintiff’s counsel obtained a 25 favorable judgment remanding the case for further administrative proceedings. (Docs. 23-25). 26 Plaintiff additionally seeks $402.00 in costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920 for the filing fees 27 1 Statutory Maximum Rates Under the Equal Access to Justice, available at https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/attorneys/statutory-maximum-rates/ (last visited March 20, 1 | incurred at Doc. 1. Under the EAJA, the Court may award a judgment of costs to the prevailing 2 | party. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(a)(1) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1920). Costs include, among other things, 3 | court filing fees. See 28 U.S.C. § 1920; Armstrong v. Astrue, No. CIV-S-07-1456-DAD, 2008 WL 2705023, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jul. 9, 2008) (granting prevailing plaintiff's request for 5 | reimbursement of filing fee). 6 EAJA fees, expenses, and costs are subject to any offsets allowed under the Treasury Offset 7 | Program (“TOP”), as discussed in Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010). If the Commissioner 8 | determines upon effectuation of this order that Plaintiff's EAJA fees are not subject to any offset 9 | allowed under the TOP, the fees shall be delivered or otherwise transmitted to Plaintiffs counsel. 10 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED: 11 1. Plaintiff's request for attorney’s fees pursuant to the EAJA and request for court costs 12 (Doc. 26) is GRANTED; 13 2. The Commissioner is directed to pay to Plaintiff as the prevailing party attorney fees in 14 the amount of $7,600.00. Unless any offsets are applied under TOP, the government shall 15 make payment of the fees to Plaintiff's counsel Andrew T. Koenig, in accordance with 16 Plaintiff's assignment of fees and subject to the terms of the stipulation; and 17 3. Plaintiff be awarded $402.00 in costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920. 18 [T IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ March 20, 2023 | Wr bo 20 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28