DAVIS v. KIJAKAZI

• Court: District Court, S.D. Indiana
• Decided: January 20, 2022
• Docket: 2:21-cv-00255
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA TERRE HAUTE DIVISION

HAEVEN A. D., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 2:21-cv-00255-JPH-MJD ) KILOLO KIJAKAZI Acting Commissioner ) of Social Security Administration, ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER ON MOTION TO CORRECT EAJA RULING

After an agreed remand to the Social Security Administration, dkt. 14; dkt. 15, the Court granted the parties' joint motion for attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act ("EAJA"), dkt. 18. That order recognized that "[a]ny fees paid belong to Plaintiff and not her attorney and can be offset to satisfy any pre-existing debt that the litigant owes the United States." Id. (citing Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010)). Defendant has filed a motion to correct because it reads the fee award as "providing that payment should issue in the name of Plaintiff, not counsel." Dkt. 19 at 2. The motion to correct asks that the order be modified to add that "[i]f defendant can verify that plaintiff does not owe a pre-existing debt to the government subject to the offset, Defendant will direct that the award be made payable to plaintiff's attorney pursuant to the EAJA assignment duly signed by plaintiff and counsel." Id. at 1. However, the Acting Commissioner has not filed the fee assignment, has not analyzed why it is valid see, e.g., 31 U.S.C. § 3727 (Anti-Assignment Act), and has not explained under what authority the Court should designate a required recipient of the payment. Dkt. 19; see dkt. 17. The Court therefore did not and does not order that the payment may only be made directly to Plaintiff herself. See Mathews-—Sheets v. Astrue, 653 F.3d 560, 565-66 (7th Cir. 2011) (overruled on other grounds by Sprinkle v. Colvin, 777 F.3d 421, 4277 (7th Cir. 2015)). For these reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant's motion to correct, dkt. [19], to the extent that the Court's previous order on attorney fees is VACATED, dkt. [18]. The Court now ORDERS as follows: The Parties have filed a joint motion to award $1,403.28 in attorney's fees and expenses to Plaintiff under the Equal Access to Justice Act ("EAJA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). Dkt. [17]. For the reasons in the motion, that motion is GRANTED. Any fees paid belong to Plaintiff and not her attorney and can be offset to satisfy any pre-existing debt that the litigant owes the United States. Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010). Nothing in this order prevents Defendant from directing that the award be made payable to Plaintiffs attorney under an EAJA assignment if Defendant can verify that Plaintiff does not owe a pre- existing debt to the government subject to the offset. SO ORDERED. Date: 1/20/2022 S\amnu Patruck lanl James Patrick Hanlon United States District Judge Southern District of Indiana

Distribution:

Andrew Irvin Neltner SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION andrew.neltner@ssa.gov

Eric Harris Schepard Office of the Regional Chief Counsel Region V eric.schepard@ssa.gov

Julian Clifford Wierenga UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE (Indianapolis) julian.wierenga@usdoj.gov

Adriana Maria de la Torre THE DE LA TORRE LAW OFFICE LLC adriana@dltlawoffice.com