Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01814/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01814-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWW)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MELANIE CAROL PRESLEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-01814-JD 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EAJA 

FEES

Re: Dkt. No. 35

In this social security appeal, plaintiff has requested an award of attorney’s fees and costs 

under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). The request is granted 

with some modifications by the Court. 

Defendant does not deny that plaintiff is a “prevailing party” but contends that no fees are 

warranted because defendant’s legal position was “substantially justified” under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2412(d)(1)(A). The problem with this argument is that it focuses only on the legal positions the 

government took during the defense of the case. Under the EAJA, the “position of the United 

States” which must be “substantially justified” “means, in addition to the position taken by the 

United States in the civil action, the action or failure to act by the agency upon which the civil 

action is based.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). Our Circuit has expressly stated that “[i]n the social 

security context, we have consistently treated the ALJ’s decision as the ‘action or failure to act by 

the agency upon which the civil action is based.’” Meier v. Colvin, 727 F.3d 867 (9th Cir. 2013).

It is the government’s burden to show that its position was substantially justified, and it has 

failed to do so in this case with respect to the ALJ’s decision upon which this action is based. The 

February 5, 2016 order of the SSA Appeals Council remanding this case back to the 

administrative law judge points out certain errors in the ALJ’s September 12, 2012 decision. 

These include the ALJ’s failure to properly weigh “the medical opinion evidence pertaining to the 

Case 3:14-cv-01814-JD Document 39 Filed 05/10/16 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

claimant’s psychological impairments,” and the ALJ’s improper reliance on the vocational expert 

evidence for the reasons stated in the Appeals Council’s remand order. Dkt. No. 37-1 at 1-2. The 

Court finds that these errors, which were identified by the Social Security Administration itself, 

preclude the government from showing here that the ALJ’s decision was “substantially justified,” 

or that it had “a reasonable basis in both law and fact.” Meier, 727 F.3d at 870 (quoting Pierce v. 

Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 565 (1988)). The Court consequently finds that plaintiff is entitled to 

an award of attorney’s fees and costs under the EAJA. 

For the specific amount to be awarded, the government has argued that the amount sought 

by plaintiff -- $13,769.70 -- should be reduced. Dkt. Nos. 35, 36. 

The Court in its discretion rejects the government’s arguments about the fees that were 

allegedly excessive, unreasonable or duplicative. Dkt. No. 36 at 5-7. The Court generally finds 

the fees and costs challenged by defendant to be reasonable and sufficiently documented.

The government has also made arguments about specific fees that are not properly 

compensable under the EAJA, Dkt. No. 36 at 7-8, and plaintiff has made no reply about those 

items. Dkt. No. 37. The Court consequently subtracts from the amount requested the fees for time 

spent before the complaint was filed, as well as for time spent on plaintiff’s subsequent application 

for benefits after the filing of this case. These result in a subtraction of $519.51 from the 

$13,769.70 sought by plaintiff.

The Court consequently orders defendant to pay $13,250.19 of EAJA fees and costs to 

plaintiff, Melanie Presley, as soon as practicable. The government may make the amount payable 

to plaintiff’s counsel instead, should it determine that it can properly do so under the applicable 

rules and regulations. Dkt. No. 36 at 8-9. The Court declines to set a time limit for the payment 

and orders the government to make the payment as soon as practicable. Plaintiff may, however, 

request the Court’s further assistance in the event no payment has been made within 120 days.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 10, 2016

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-01814-JD Document 39 Filed 05/10/16 Page 2 of 2