Jackson v. Social Security Administration

District Court, E.D. Arkansas·Decided December 16, 2022·No. 4:21-cv-01189·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION BRELON JACKSON PLAINTIFF Vv. Case No. 4:21-CV-01189-JTK KILOLO KIJAKAZI, DEFENDANT Acting Commissioner Social Security Administration ORDER Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Brelon Jackson’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (““EAJA”). (Doc. No. 19) Mr. Jackson requests a total of $3,894.19 (which includes $3,848.90 in fees and $45.29 in expenses). (Doc. No. 19) Defendant does not object to this award. (Doc. No. 22) After careful consideration, the Court finds that Mr. Jackson should be awarded reasonable attorney’s fees. EAJA fees are payable to plaintiffs, not plaintiffs’ attorneys, and such fees are subject to an offset when a plaintiff has outstanding federal debts. See Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 589 (2010). Therefore, subject to any offset, payment by check to the order of Mr. Jackson, in care of his attorney, will issue to his attorney. Accordingly, the Motion for Attorney’s Fees pursuant to the EAJA (Doc. No. 19) is GRANTED. Mr. Jackson is awarded $3,894.19. SO ORDERED THIS 16th day of December, 2022. :

JEROMET.KEARNEY ——————™ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

Jackson v. Social Security Administration, (E.D. Ark. 2022).

Jackson v. Social Security Administration (Jackson v. Social Security Administration) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

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