Byrd v. Kijakazi

CourtDistrict Court, N.D. Mississippi
DecidedJanuary 20, 2022
Docket3:20-cv-00309
StatusUnknown

This text of Byrd v. Kijakazi (Byrd v. Kijakazi) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Mississippi primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Byrd v. Kijakazi, (N.D. Miss. 2022).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI OXFORD DIVISION

KIMBERLY S. BYRD PLAINTIFF

v. No.: 3:20-cv-309-JMV

KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Commissioner of Social Security DEFENDANT

ORDER

Before the court are the Plaintiff’s motion [33] for attorney fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), and the Defendant’s response [34]. For the reasons that follow, the motion will be granted. In these proceedings, Plaintiff sought judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner’s final decision denying a claim for benefits. By Final Judgment, dated November 5, 2021, this court remanded this case to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings. The Plaintiff now seeks attorney fees in the amount of $4,611.60 for 24.4 hours of attorney time before this court on the grounds that Plaintiff was the prevailing party and the Commissioner’s position was not substantially justified. The Commissioner does not oppose the requested award but insists the award be made payable directly to Plaintiff pursuant to Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010). The court, having thoroughly considered the motion, response, and the applicable law, finds the requested award is reasonable; and no special circumstance would make the award unjust. Further, the award should be made payable to Plaintiff and mailed in the care of Plaintiff’s counsel, consistent with the Commissioner’s general procedure in accordance with the Supreme Court’s decision in Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010). THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED: That the Commissioner shall promptly pay Plaintiff $4,611.60 in attorney fees for the benefit of counsel for Plaintiff. SO ORDERED this, the 20th day of January, 2022. /s/ Jane M. Virden __ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Astrue v. Ratliff
560 U.S. 586 (Supreme Court, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Byrd v. Kijakazi, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/byrd-v-kijakazi-msnd-2022.