(SS) Campos v. Commissioner of Social Security ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JORGE CAMPOS, Case No. 2:21-cv-00169-JDP 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES UNDER THE 13 v. EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT 14 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff moves for an award of attorney’s fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice 18 Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1). ECF No. 23. Plaintiff seeks fees in the amount of 19 $4,598.48 based on 21.7 total hours of work: 20.5 hours in 2021 and .6 hours in 2022 at the 20 corresponding statutory-maximum rates of $217.54 and $231.49. ECF Nos. 23 & 25-2. Plaintiff 21 also seeks $2.75 in costs for mailing documents, for a total award of $4,601.23. Id. 22 The EAJA provides that a prevailing party other than the United States should be awarded 23 fees and other expenses incurred by that party in any civil action brought by or against the United 24 States, “unless the court finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified or 25 that special circumstances make an award unjust directs the court to award a reasonable fee.” 28 26 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1). In determining whether a fee is reasonable, the court considers the hours 27 expended, the reasonable hourly rate, and the results obtained. See Comm’r, INS v. Jean, 496 28 U.S. 154 (1990); Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983); Atkins v. Apfel, 154 F.3d 986 (9th 1 | Cir. 1998). “[E]xcessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary” hours should be excluded from a 2 | fee award, and charges that are not properly billable to a client are not properly billable to the 3 | government. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434. 4 Plaintiff was the prevailing party in this action. See ECF No. 22. Furthermore, the 5 | government has not filed an opposition to plaintiffs motion and therefore has failed to show that 6 | its position was substantially justified. See Gutierrez v. Barnhart, 274 F.3d 1255, 1258 (9th Cir. 7 | 2001) cholding that the burden of establishing substantial justification is on the government). The 8 | court has independently reviewed the record and finds that both the hourly rate and hours 9 || expended are reasonable in light of the results obtained. 10 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 11 1. Plaintiffs motion for attorney’s fees, ECF No. 23, is granted. 12 2. Plaintiff is awarded attorney’s fees and costs under the EAJA in the amount of 13 | $4,601.23. 14 3. Pursuant to Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010), any payment shall be made payable 15 | to plaintiff and delivered to plaintiff's counsel, unless plaintiff does not owe a federal debt. If the 16 | United States Department of the Treasury determines that plaintiff does not owe a federal debt, 17 | the government shall accept plaintiff's assignment of EAJA fees and pay fees directly to 18 | plaintiff's counsel. 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 ( q Sty - Dated: _ December 13, 2022 q——— 22 JEREMY D,. PETERSON 74 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28