Carter v. Social Security Administration

E.D. Texas

Carter v. Social Security Administration

DecidedJune 14, 2023

Docket2:22-cv-00345

StatusUnknown

This text of Carter v. Social Security Administration (Carter v. Social Security Administration) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carter v. Social Security Administration, (E.D. Tex. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

JOHNATHAN CARTER, § § Petitioner, § § v. § Case No. 2:22-cv-0345-RSP § COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY § ADMINISTRATION, § § Defendant. §

MEMORANDUM ORDER Currently before the Court is the Motion for Attorney Fees Under the Equal Access to Justice Act (Dkt. No. 21), filed by Petitioner on June 12, 2023. The motion seeks compensation for 18.4 hours at the adjusted statutory rates permitted by the Act, for a total of $3,606.40, without costs due to Petitioner’s IFP status. The Commissioner does not oppose the requested award of fees. (Dkt. No. 22). The Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. §2412, allows a prevailing party in litigation against the United States, including a petitioner for Social Security benefits, to recover his attorney’s fees “unless the court finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust.” Id. at §2412 (d)(1)(a). The Supreme Court has explained that “EAJA fees are determined not by a percent of the amount recovered, but by the ‘time expended’ and the attorney’s ‘hourly rate,’” which is statutorily capped. Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 794, 122 S.Ct. 1817, 152 L.Ed.2d 996 (2002). See generally, Murkeldove v. Astrue, 635 F.3d 784, 789 (5th Cir. 2011). The Commissioner does not contend, nor does the Court find, that the position of the government was substantially justified or that any special circumstances exist rendering an award unjust. The Court finds that Petitioner’s requested fee is appropriate. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant will pay Petitioner $3,606.40 in EAJA fees. In accordance with the Supreme Court’s decision in Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S.Ct. 2521 (2010), this award will be payable to Petitioner, by delivery to his counsel of record, Greg Giles, 1206 North State Line Ave., Texarkana, Arkansas, 71854. SIGNED this 14th day of June, 2023.

9. Voy 3 Vey UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-2-

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

JOHNATHAN CARTER, § § Petitioner, § § v. § Case No. 2:22-cv-0345-RSP § COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY § ADMINISTRATION, § § Defendant. §

MEMORANDUM ORDER Currently before the Court is the Motion for Attorney Fees Under the Equal Access to Justice Act (Dkt. No. 21), filed by Petitioner on June 12, 2023. The motion seeks compensation for 18.4 hours at the adjusted statutory rates permitted by the Act, for a total of $3,606.40, without costs due to Petitioner’s IFP status. The Commissioner does not oppose the requested award of fees. (Dkt. No. 22). The Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. §2412, allows a prevailing party in litigation against the United States, including a petitioner for Social Security benefits, to recover his attorney’s fees “unless the court finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust.” Id. at §2412 (d)(1)(a). The Supreme Court has explained that “EAJA fees are determined not by a percent of the amount recovered, but by the ‘time expended’ and the attorney’s ‘hourly rate,’” which is statutorily capped. Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 794, 122 S.Ct. 1817, 152 L.Ed.2d 996 (2002). See generally, Murkeldove v. Astrue, 635 F.3d 784, 789 (5th Cir. 2011). The Commissioner does not contend, nor does the Court find, that the position of the government was substantially justified or that any special circumstances exist rendering an award unjust. The Court finds that Petitioner’s requested fee is appropriate. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant will pay Petitioner $3,606.40 in EAJA fees. In accordance with the Supreme Court’s decision in Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S.Ct. 2521 (2010), this award will be payable to Petitioner, by delivery to his counsel of record, Greg Giles, 1206 North State Line Ave., Texarkana, Arkansas, 71854. SIGNED this 14th day of June, 2023.

9. Voy 3 Vey UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Carter v. Social Security Administration, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carter-v-social-security-administration-txed-2023.

Opinion

9. Voy 3 Vey UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack