(SS) Gabriel 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 TRENTON LYDELL GABRIEL, Case No. 1:21-cv-00390-CDB (SS) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES PURSUANT TO THE 13 v. EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, (Doc. 28) 15 Defendant. 16 17 Pending before the Court is the motion for attorney’s fees of Plaintiff Trenton Lydell 18 Gabriel (“Plaintiff”) pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). 19 (Doc. 28).1 Defendant the Commissioner of Social Security (“Defendant”) did not file an 20 opposition to the motion and the time within which to do so has passed. See Local Rule 230.2 21 Plaintiff requests an award of attorney’s fees to counsel for Plaintiff, Jonathan O. Pena. Id. 22 On August 31, 2023, the Court issued an order remanding this action for further 23 proceedings under sentence four 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Doc. 26). The Court found “the ALJ 24 discussed the relevant medical evidence ‘but failed to link’ Plaintiff’s testimony to the medical 25 record and explain how that evidence contradicted his testimony.” Id. at 16 (citation omitted). 26 1 Both parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge for all proceedings in this action, in 27 accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). (Doc. 11). 1 Thus, the Court held the ALJ’s failure to set forth clear and convincing reasons supported by 2 substantial evidence constituted legal error. Id. at 17-18. That same day, judgement was entered 3 in favor of Plaintiff against Defendant. (Doc. 27). On November 29, 2023, Plaintiff filed the 4 pending motion for attorney fees. (Doc. 28). 5 Plaintiff requests an award of attorney fees as the prevailing party. Id.; see Shalala v. 6 Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 300-02 (1993) (concluding that a party who prevails in a sentence-four 7 remand order under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) is a prevailing party). Plaintiff’s request is timely. Van 8 v. Barnhart, 483 F.3d 600, 607 (9th Cir. 2007). 9 The EAJA provides for an award of attorney fees to private litigants who both prevail in 10 civil actions (other than tort) against the United States and timely file a petition for fees. 28 11 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). Under the EAJA, a court shall award attorney fees to the prevailing 12 party unless it finds the government’s position was “substantially justified or that special 13 circumstances make such an award unjust.” Id. To be “substantially justified,” the government’s 14 litigation position and the underlying agency action must have a “reasonable basis both in law 15 and fact.” Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 565 (1988); Ibrahim v. DHS, 912 F.3d 1147, 16 1167 (9th Cir. 2019) (en banc). A determination that an ALJ’s decision “was unsupported by 17 substantial evidence is therefore a strong indication that the ‘position of the United States’…was 18 not substantially justified.” Thangaraja v. Gonzales, 428 F.3d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 2005). Because 19 “substantial evidence” is a “deferential…standard of review” and refers to “such relevant 20 evidence as a reasonable person might accept as adequate to support a conclusion,” a finding that 21 substantial evidence is lacking usually means “the government’s underlying action was not 22 substantially justified.” Meier v. Colvin, 727 F.3d 867, 872 (9th Cir. 2013). Here, the Court 23 determined the ALJ’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence. (Doc. 26 at 17-18). 24 Moreover, the Commissioner has not responded to Plaintiff’s motion and there are no special 25 circumstances that would make an award unjust. Accordingly, Plaintiff is eligible for EAJA fees. 26 Having determined that Plaintiff is eligible for EAJA fees, the Court must determine what 27 fee is reasonable. Comm'r, I.N.S. v. Jean, 496 U.S. 154, 161 (1990). Plaintiff requests an award 1 | 2021, and 17.9 hours in 2022. (Doc. 28-1). Counsel for Plaintiff requests hourly rates consistent 2 | with the Ninth Circuit’s list of the statutory maximum hourly rates in 2021 ($217.54), and 2022 3 | ($234.95). Id.; Thangaraja v. Gonzales, 428 F.3d 870, 876-77 (9th Cir. 2005).? The Court has 4 | reviewed the docket and finds this amount reasonable and commensurate with the number of 5 | hours an attorney reasonably would need to have spent working on this case. Specifically, 6 | counsel for Plaintiff reviewed a voluminous certified administrative record (605 pages), prepared a motion for summary judgment raising one issue for review, reviewed and researched 8 | Defendant’s opposition, and prepared and filed a reply brief. (Docs. 12, 18, 22-23). With respect 9 | to the results obtained, Plaintiff's counsel obtained a favorable judgment remanding the case for 10 | further administrative proceedings. (Docs. 26-27). 11 EAJA fees, expenses, and costs are subject to any offsets allowed under the Treasury Offset 12 | Program (“TOP”), as discussed in Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010). If the Commissioner 13 | determines upon effectuation of this order that Plaintiff's EAJA fees are not subject to any offset 14 | allowed under the TOP, the fees shall be delivered or otherwise transmitted to Plaintiffs counsel. 15 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED: 16 1. Plaintiff's motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to EAJA (Doc. 28) is GRANTED; 17 2. The Commissioner is directed to pay to Plaintiff as the prevailing party attorney fees in 18 the amount of $4,618.92. Unless any offsets are applied under TOP, the government shall 19 make payment of the fees to Plaintiff's counsel Jonathan O. Pena in accordance with 20 Plaintiff's assignment of fees and subject to the terms of the stipulation. 21 [T IS SO ORDERED. 22| Dated: December 19, 2023 | Ww Vv Ry 23 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 3 Statutory Maximum Rates Under the Equal Access to Justice, available at 2g fttps://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/attorneys/statutory-maximum-rates/ (last visited December 19, 023).