IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RUBY HUGHES, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:06cv732-WC

)

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, )

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL )

SECURITY, )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

On September 26, 2007, Plaintiff, Ruby L. Hughes, filed a motion (Doc. #21) for

an award of attorney fees in the amount of $4,773.63 pursuant to the Equal Access to

Justice Act (EAJA). 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (2000). Hughes also seeks 30-days from the date

of service of notice of the past due benefits in which to file a petition for attorney’s fees

under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). The Court will discuss each component of the motion in turn.

As the Commissioner does not oppose the computation or amount of fees charged

pursuant to the EAJA, but rather, contests the request that the fees be paid directly to

counsel for Hughes, it is 

ORDERED that Hughes’s motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN

PART. The Court awards Hughes attorney’s fees in the amount of $4,773.63. The Court

awards the fees directly to Hughes, not her counsel.

The EAJA, 28 U.S.C. § 2412, provides a mandatory attorney’s fees award to a

Case 1:06-cv-00732-WC Document 24 Filed 10/10/07 Page 1 of 3
2

prevailing party that meets certain statutory conditions. 28 U.S.C. § 2412. Once a

plaintiff demonstrates eligibility under the EAJA, the government must pay attorney’s

fees unless it is able to prove that its position was substantially justified or special

circumstances make an award unjust. Specifically, the EAJA provides in relevant part:

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 . . . 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). 

In this case, the Court concluded that the Commissioner’s final determination

should be remanded for further proceedings in accordance with the Court’s opinion.

Memorandum Opinion (Doc. #19) at 13-14. Correspondingly, the Court entered

judgment in favor of Hughes, the prevailing party in this suit, not her counsel. Judgment

(Doc. #20); see Morillo-Cedron v. Dist. Dir. for the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration

Servs., 452 F.3d 1254, 1257-58 (11th Cir. 2006). The EAJA therefore requires the Court

to award fees to Hughes. 

As mentioned above, Hughes’s motion also requests an additional 30-days after

service of the notice of past due benefits to file a petition for fees under 42 U.S.C. §

406(b). Hughes’s motion, however, is premature. While Hughes properly states that this

Court recently remanded her case back to the Social Security Administration for further

proceedings, the Court did not order Defendant to award social security benefits to

Case 1:06-cv-00732-WC Document 24 Filed 10/10/07 Page 2 of 3
3

Hughes, nor did it find Hughes disabled, as the motion presumes. Rather, the decision

remanded the case back to Defendant for further proceedings consistent with the Court’s

opinion. Memorandum Opinion (Doc. #19) at 13-14. Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED that Hughes’s motion for an additional 30-days after service of the

notice of past due benefits to file a petition for fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) is DENIED. 

Counsel can renew his motion, if necessary, following Defendant’s remand

determination. 

Done this 10th day of October, 2007. 

/s/ Wallace Capel, Jr.

WALLACE CAPEL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00732-WC Document 24 Filed 10/10/07 Page 3 of 3