Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_03-cv-00164/USCOURTS-alsd-1_03-cv-00164-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jo Anne B. Barnhart
Defendant
Mark E. Jowers
Plaintiff

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MARK E. JOWERS, *

 *

Plaintiff, *

 *

vs. * CIVIL ACTION No.03-00164-CG-B

 *

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, *

Commissioner of Social *

Security, *

 *

Defendant. *

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's unopposed

Motion For Award Of Attorney's Fees Pursuant To The Equal Access

To Justice Act 28 U.S.C. 2412 and supporting memorandum. (Docs.

28 and 29). This action was referred to the undersigned

Magistrate Judge for report and recommendation pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.2(c)(3). Upon

consideration of the pertinent pleadings, it is the

recommendation of the undersigned that Plaintiff should receive

a reasonable attorney's fee in the amount of $375.00.

I. Findings Of Fact

1. Plaintiff filed this action on March 18, 2003. (Doc.

1). On February 4, 2005, the Court entered Judgment pursuant to

sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and reversed and remanded

this cause to the Commissioner of Social Security for further

proceedings. (Doc. 27).

Case 1:03-cv-00164-CG-B Document 32 Filed 05/13/05 Page 1 of 7
1

“[A] party who wins a sentence-four remand order is a prevailing

party.” Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 302 (1993). 

2

2. Plaintiff's Application for attorney's fees, and

memorandum in support thereof, were filed on April 26, 2005.

(Docs. 28 and 29). In the application, Plaintiff requests an

attorney's fee award of $375.00. (Id.) The attorney's fee

award represents a total of 3 hours, at an hourly rate of

$125.00 per hour for attorney time spent representing Plaintiff

in this Court.

3. The Commissioner of Social Security has filed a

Response to Plaintiff's Motion, and states that the Commissioner

has no objection to Plaintiff's application. (Doc. 31).

II. Conclusions Of Law

1. The Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) requires a

district court to “award to a prevailing party . . . fees and

other expenses . . . incurred by that party in any civil action

. . . , including proceedings for judicial review of agency

action, brought by or against the United States . . . , unless

the court finds that the position of the United States was

substantially justified or that special circumstances make an

award unjust.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). The Commissioner

does not dispute the issues of prevailing party status,1

Case 1:03-cv-00164-CG-B Document 32 Filed 05/13/05 Page 2 of 7
2

The EAJA requires a prevailing party to file an application for

attorney’s fees within thirty (30) days of final judgment in the action. 28

U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(B). The thirty (30) day clock did not begin to run in

this action until this Court’s Order of Judgment dated February 4, 2005 (Doc.

27) became final, which would have occurred at the end of the sixty (60) days

for appeal provided under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). See Shalala, 509 U.S. at

302. Because Plaintiff’s motion was filed on April 26, 2005 (Docs. 28-29), it

is found to be timely filed.

3

On March 29, 1996, the EAJA was amended so as to increase the statutory

cap on EAJA fees from $75.00 per hour to $125.00 per hour. See, e.g, Ikner v.

Apfel, 2000 WL 1844704, *2 n.1 (S.D. Ala. Nov 09, 2000). These amendments

apply to civil actions commenced on or after the date of enactment; therefore,

the statutory cap of $125.00 per hour applies in this present action.

3

timeliness,2 or substantial justification. 

2. With regard to a determination of the hourly rate to

apply in a given EAJA case, the express language of the Act, as

recently amended,3 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

The amount of fees awarded under this subsection shall

be based upon prevailing market rates for the kind and

quality of the services furnished, except that . . .

attorneys fees shall not be awarded in excess of

$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). 

3. In Meyer v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 1029 (11th Cir. 1992),

the Court determined that the EAJA establishes a two-step

analysis for determining the appropriate hourly rate to be

applied in calculating attorneys fees under the Act: 

The first step in the analysis, . . . is to determine

the market rate for “similar services [provided] by

lawyers of reasonably comparable skills, experience,

Case 1:03-cv-00164-CG-B Document 32 Filed 05/13/05 Page 3 of 7
4

and reputation.” . . . The second step, which is

needed only if the market rate is greater than

[$125.00] per hour, is to determine whether the court

should adjust the hourly fee upward from [$125.00] to

take into account an increase in the cost of living,

or a special factor. 

Id. at 1033-34 (citations and footnote omitted).

4. The prevailing market rate in the Southern District of

Alabama has been previously determined to be $125.00 per hour.

See Boggs v. Massanari, C.A. 00-0408-P-C (S.D. Ala. (Jun. 13,

2001)); Boone v. Apfel, C.A. 99-0965-CB-L (S.D. Ala. (Aug. 30,

2001)). Because the market rate is not greater than the

statutory rate of $125.00 per hour, this Court need not reach

the second step of the Meyer analysis.

5. With regard to the reasonableness of the hours claimed

by Plaintiff’s attorney, “[t]he fee applicant bears the burden

of establishing entitlement and documenting the appropriate

hours and hourly rates.” Norman v. Housing Auth. of City of

Montgomery, 836 F.2d 1292, 1303 (11th Cir. 1988). “[T]he measure

of reasonable hours is determined by the profession’s judgment

of the time that may be conscionably billed and not the least

time in which it might theoretically have been done.” Id. at

1306. 

6. In the case sub judice, attached to Plaintiff’s motion

is a time sheet detailing the description of work performed, the

time expended and the date on which the work was performed.

Case 1:03-cv-00164-CG-B Document 32 Filed 05/13/05 Page 4 of 7
(Doc. 28 at 3). The undersigned has reviewed this document and

Defendant's response, and finds that, under the circumstances,

and given the usual number of hours billed by attorneys in

similar actions, Plaintiff is entitled to 3 hours of attorney

time expended representing Plaintiff in federal court.

III. CONCLUSION

Therefore, upon consideration of the pertinent pleadings,

the undersigned magistrate judge RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s

Motion For Award Of Attorney's Fees Pursuant To The Equal Access

To Justice Act 28 U.S.C. § 2412 be GRANTED, and that the award

be limited to the EAJA rate of $125.00 per hour, thereby

resulting in an award of $375.00 for 3 attorney hours spent

representing Plaintiff in connection with this action.

The attached sheet contains important information regarding

objections to the report and recommendation of the Magistrate

Judge.

DONE this 13th day of May, 2005.

 s/ Sonja F. Bivins 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-00164-CG-B Document 32 Filed 05/13/05 Page 5 of 7
6

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S EXPLANATION OF PROCEDURAL RIGHTS

AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION

AND FINDINGS CONCERNING NEED FOR TRANSCRIPT

1. Objection. Any party who objects to this recommendation or

anything in it must, within ten days of the date of service of

this document, file specific written objections with the clerk

of court. Failure to do so will bar a de novo determination by

the district judge of anything in the recommendation and will

bar an attack, on appeal, of the factual findings of the

magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c); Lewis v. Smith,

855 F.2d 736, 738 (11th Cir. 1988). The procedure for

challenging the findings and recommendations of the magistrate

judge is set out in more detail in SD ALA LR 72.4 (June 1,

1997), which provides, in part, that:

A party may object to a recommendation entered by a

magistrate judge in a dispositive matter, that is, a

matter excepted by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), by filing

a “Statement of Objection to Magistrate Judge’s

Recommendation” within ten days after being served

with a copy of the recommendation, unless a different

time is established by order. The statement of

objection shall specify those portions of the

recommendation to which objection is made and the

basis for the objection. The objecting party shall

submit to the district judge, at the time of filing

the objection, a brief setting forth the party’s

arguments that the magistrate judge’s recommendation

should be reviewed de novo and a different disposition

made. It is insufficient to submit only a copy of the

original brief submitted to the magistrate judge,

although a copy of the original brief may be submitted

or referred to and incorporated into the brief in

support of the objection. Failure to submit a brief

in support of the objection may be deemed an

abandonment of the objection.

A magistrate judge’s recommendation cannot be appealed to

a Court of Appeals; only the district judge’s order or judgment

can be appealed.

2. Opposing party’s response to the objection. Any opposing

party may submit a brief opposing the objection within ten (10)

days of being served with a copy of the statement of objection.

Case 1:03-cv-00164-CG-B Document 32 Filed 05/13/05 Page 6 of 7
7

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; SD ALA LR 72.4(b). 

3. Transcript (applicable where proceedings tape recorded).

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), the

magistrate judge finds that the tapes and original records in

this action are adequate for purposes of review. Any party

planning to object to this recommendation, but unable to pay the

fee for a transcript, is advised that a judicial determination

that transcription is necessary is required before the United

States will pay the cost of the transcript.

 s / SONJA F. BIVINS 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-00164-CG-B Document 32 Filed 05/13/05 Page 7 of 7