Source: http://al.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20181128_0000795.SAL.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-04-05 19:58:08
Document Index: 306342596

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2412', '§ 2414', '§ 2412', '§ 1746', '§ 405', '§ 2412', '§ 2412']

FindACase™ | Sam v. Berryhill
Sam v. Berryhill
JASON M. SAM, Plaintiff,
This action is before the Court on the motion for attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (“EAJA”) (Doc. 24) filed by the Plaintiff, Jason M. Sam (hereinafter, “the Plaintiff”), which requests an award of $871.86 in attorney fees from the Defendant Commissioner of Social Security (“the Commissioner”). The Commissioner has timely filed a response (Doc. 26) to the motion stating that she does not object to an award of fees to the Plaintiff under EAJA in the amount requested. Upon consideration, the Court finds the Plaintiff's motion (Doc. 24) is due to be GRANTED.[1]
Here, final judgment was entered on August 27, 2018 (see Doc. 23), and no appeal was taken from that judgment. Because a United States officer sued in an official capacity is a party to this action, the time to appeal expired after Friday, October 26, 2018 - 60 days from the date of entry of final judgment, excluding the date of entry. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B)(iii); Fed. R. App. P. 26(a)(1)(A). Because the Plaintiff filed and served the present motion within 30 days of that date, on November 9, 2018, the motion is timely.[2]
An individual qualifies as a “party” under § 2414(d)(1)(A) if the individual's “net worth did not exceed $2, 000, 000 at the time the civil action was filed.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(B). Based on the undisputed representations in the Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed without prepayment of fees (Doc. 2) filed contemporaneously with the complaint, which is in substantial compliance with 28 U.S.C. § 1746 and thus constitutes an unsworn declaration made under penalty of perjury, the Court finds that the Plaintiff qualifies as a “party” for purposes of EAJA. And because the Plaintiff received a remand of a final decision of the Commissioner under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (see Doc. 22), the Plaintiff is a “prevailing” party under EAJA. See Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 301-02 (1993); Newsome, 8 F.3d at 777 (“Courts have routinely awarded EAJA attorney's fees to claimants in Social Security cases who satisfy the statutory conditions.”); Myers v. Sullivan, 916 F.2d 659, 666 (11th Cir. 1990) (“Since the EAJA's enactment, the vast majority of EAJA awards have gone to claimants who succeeded in challenging contrary benefits decisions made by the Secretary of Health and Human Services.”).
As required, the Plaintiff has alleged in the present motion that “the position of the United States throughout this litigation…was not substantially justified…” (Doc. 24 at 2). The Commissioner has not attempted to rebut that allegation, and there are no special circumstances apparent from the record which countenance against the awarding of fees. Thus, the Court finds that the Plaintiff is entitled to an award under EAJA.
The “fees and other expenses” that a prevailing party is entitled to receive under § 2412(d)(1)(A) “includes…reasonable attorney fees…” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A). The Plaintiff requests a total EAJA award of $871.86 in attorney fees, which are based on 4.4 hours of federal court work performed by ...