Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01346/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01346-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Jeanette Rios
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEANETTE RIOS,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:14-cv-01346-SAB

ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEY FEES AND 

COSTS PURSUANT TO THE EQUAL ACCESS 

TO JUSTICE ACT

(ECF No. 18)

Currently before the Court is Petitioner, Kelsey M. Brown‟s (Counsel or Petitioner), 

attorney for Plaintiff Jeanette Rios (Plaintiff), motion for attorney fees under the Equal Access to 

Justice Act (“EAJA”). For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner‟s motion will be granted.

I.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed her application for benefits under the Social Security Act on May 25, 2011. 

Plaintiff‟s application was denied. On August 28, 2014, Plaintiff filed this action appealing 

Defendant‟s decision in denying Plaintiff‟s application for benefits. (ECF No. 1.) On September 

9, 2015, the Court granted Plaintiff‟s appeal and remanded this action to the Social Security 

Administration for further proceedings. (ECF No. 16.) 

On December 8, 2015, Petitioner filed a motion for attorney fees pursuant to the EAJA. 

Case 1:14-cv-01346-SAB Document 19 Filed 12/30/15 Page 1 of 5
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

2

(ECF No. 18.) Counsel requests attorney‟s fees in the amount of $6,047.87 for 31.85 hours 

expended in this action and expenses in the amount of $6.17. Defendant did not file an 

opposition to the motion. 

II.

LEGAL STANDARDS FOR EAJA MOTIONS

A party that prevails against the United States in a civil action is entitled, in certain 

circumstances, to an award of attorney‟s fees, court costs, and other expenses under the EAJA. 

Flores v. Shalala, 49 F.3d 562, 566, (9th Cir. 1995). The Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 

28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), states, in pertinent part:

(d)(1)(A) Except as otherwise specifically provided by statute, a court shall 

award to a prevailing party other than the United States fees and other expenses, 

in addition to any costs awarded pursuant to subsection (a), incurred by that party 

in any civil action (other than cases sounding in tort), including proceedings for 

judicial review of agency action, brought by or against the United States in any 

court having jurisdiction of that action, unless the court finds that the position of 

the United States was substantially justified or that special circumstances make an 

award unjust.

The EAJA defines a party as “an individual whose net worth did not exceed $2,000,000 at 

the time the civil action was filed. . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(B). Fees and expenses include

reasonable attorney fees. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A). “The statute explicitly permits the court, in 

its discretion, to reduce the amount awarded to the prevailing party to the extent that the party 

„unduly and unreasonably protracted‟ the final resolution of the case. Atkins v. Apfel, 154 F.3d 

986, 987 (9th Cir. 1998) (citing 8 U.S.C. §§ 2412(d)(1)(C), 2412(d)(2)(D)).

The Court is required to provide a concise but clear explanation for the reasons for the fee 

award. Sorenson v. Mink, 239 F.3d 1140, 1145 (9th Cir. 2001). Hours that are inadequately 

documented and hours that were not reasonably expended may reduce the fee award. Id. at 1146.

Fee shifting under EAJA is not mandatory. Flores, 49 F.3d at 567. Attorneys‟ fees and 

expenses are not awarded under EAJA where the government‟s position was substantially 

justified. Id. “A position is „substantially justified‟ if it has a „reasonable basis in law and fact.‟” 

Hardisty v. Astrue, 592 F.3d 1072, 1079 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 

552, 565 (1988)). “It is the government‟s burden to show that its position was substantially 

Case 1:14-cv-01346-SAB Document 19 Filed 12/30/15 Page 2 of 5
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

3

justified or that special circumstances exist to make an award unjust.” Gutierrez v. Barnhart, 274 

F.3d 1255, 1258 (9th Cir. 2001). The government must establish first, whether the underlying 

conduct of the ALJ was “substantially justified” and second, that its litigation position defending 

the ALJ‟s error was “substantially justified.” Id. at 1259. As the Ninth Circuit described:

Substantial justification does not mean “justified to a high degree,” but simply 

entails that the government must show that its position meets the traditional 

reasonableness standard-that is “justified in substance or in the main,” or “to a 

degree that could satisfy a reasonable person.”

Corbin v. Apfel, 149 F.3d 1051, 1052 (9th Cir. 1998).

Under EAJA, attorney fees are capped at $125.00 per hour “unless the court determines 

that an increase in the cost of living or a special factor, such as the limited availability of qualified 

attorneys for the proceedings involved, justifies a higher fee.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A); 

Sorenson, 239 F.3d at 1145.

III.

DISCUSSION

A. Plaintiff is a Prevailing Party

Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in this action in forma pauperis. Therefore the 

Court finds that she is a party as defined by section 2412. 

A plaintiff whose action is remanded is a prevailing party for the purposes of the EAJA. 

Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 300 (1993) (“No holding of this Court has ever denied 

prevailing-party status (under § 2412(d)(1)(B)) to a plaintiff who won a remand order pursuant to 

sentence four of § 405(g).”). “An applicant for disability benefits becomes a prevailing party for 

the purposes of the EAJA if the denial of her benefits is reversed and remanded regardless of 

whether disability benefits ultimately are awarded.” Gutierrez, 274 F.3d at 1257. 

Here, the Court found that the ALJ had erred by determining that Plaintiff‟s mental 

impairments were not severe and the action was remanded for the ALJ to continue the sequential 

analysis. (ECF No. 16.) Plaintiff is a prevailing party for the purposes of the EAJA.

/ / /

Case 1:14-cv-01346-SAB Document 19 Filed 12/30/15 Page 3 of 5
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

4

B. Reasonable Attorney Fees

The statute specifically provides for an award of reasonable attorney fees. 28 U.S.C. 

2412(d)(2)(A). In this action, Petitioner is seeking 31.85 hours for time spent litigating this 

action and has provided a detailed time accounting. Plaintiff filed the opening brief in this action 

that ultimately resulted in the action being remanded. Having reviewed the documentation 

provided, the Court finds that the hours sought are reasonable. See Costa v. Comm. of Soc. Sec. 

Admin., 690 F.3d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir. 2012) (“Many district courts have noted that twenty to 

forty hours is the range most often requested and granted in social security cases.”). 

Petitioner is seeking the statutory maximum rate of $190.06 per hour for time spent in 

2014 and $189.68 per hour for time spent in 2015. The Court finds that the request for $6,047.87 

is reasonable. 

C. Substantial Justification

Defendant has not presented any arguments that the Commissioner‟s position was 

substantially justified in this action. Therefore, Defendant has not met it burden to show that its 

position was substantially justified. The Court finds that Petitioner is entitled to the fees 

requested.

D. Costs

Plaintiff also seeks costs of $6.17. Plaintiff does not attach any receipt in support of the 

costs requested. On the sheet detailing the time spent in this action, there is a notation for 

“Expenses: $6.17 Service/Mailing”. (ECF No. 18-1.) While Petitioner is advised that the better 

practice would be to attach the receipt to justify the expenditure, given the small amount 

requested, the Court finds that this is a reasonable amount for serving the complaint by certified 

mail. 

VI.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner‟s motion for attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act is 

GRANTED;

Case 1:14-cv-01346-SAB Document 19 Filed 12/30/15 Page 4 of 5
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

5

2. Petitioner is awarded fees and costs in the amount of $6,054.04 under 24 U.S.C. § 

2412(d); and

3. Defendant shall determine whether Plaintiff‟s EAJA attorney fees are subject to any offset 

permitted under the United States Department of the Treasury‟s Offset Program and, if the 

fees are not subject to an offset, shall cause payment of fees to be made directly to 

Plaintiff's counsel, Kelsey Mackenzie Brown, 2529 Cliffside Ln, H-102, Gig Harbor, WA 

98335 pursuant to the assignment executed by Plaintiff.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 29, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01346-SAB Document 19 Filed 12/30/15 Page 5 of 5