Jesse G. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security

M.D. Alabama

Jesse G. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security

DecidedJanuary 13, 2026

Docket2:24-cv-00545

StatusUnknown

This text of Jesse G. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security (Jesse G. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jesse G. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security, (M.D. Ala. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION

JESSE G., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CASE NO. 2:24-cv-545-JTA ) (WO) FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of ) Social Security, ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER Before the Court is the motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), filed by Plaintiff. (Doc. No. 24.) Plaintiff seeks fees in the amount of $8,324.39. (Id.) The Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”), does not oppose the motion. (Doc. No. 28.) Under the EAJA, a federal court must award a Social Security claimant attorney’s fees if the Commissioner’s position in the litigation was not “substantially justified” and no other “special circumstances” exist that would “make an award unjust.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A); see also Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 796 (2002). A position is substantially justified “when it has a reasonable basis in both law and fact.” United States v. Douglas, 55 F.3d 584, 588 (11th Cir. 1995). The Commissioner “bears the burden of showing that its position was substantially justified.” City of Brunswick v. United States, 849 F.2d 501, 504 (11th Cir. 1988). The Court reversed the Commissioner’s decision and remanded this case for further administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Docs. No. 22, 23.) Plaintiff thus is a prevailing party. Because the Commissioner does not oppose Plaintiff's motion and has offered nothing to carry the burden of proving his position was substantially justified, the Court finds the Commissioner’s position was not substantially justified and Plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorney fees under the EAJA. Accordingly, itis ORDERED as follows: 1. The unopposed motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (Doc. No. 24) is GRANTED. 2. The plaintiff is hereby AWARDED fees in the amount of $8,324.39, subject to any offset applicable under 31 U.S.C. § 3716.! 3. The check should be mailed to Jesse Gray, c/o Anna L. King, Ludlum & King LLC, P.O. Box 1809, Auburn, AL 36831. DONE this 13th day of January, 2026.

JERUSHA T. ADAMS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

June 14, 2010, the United States Supreme Court decided Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010), wherein the Court unambiguously held that attorney’s fees are awarded to the prevailing litigant — not to prevailing litigant’s attorney — and are therefore subject to any offset for debts.

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION

JESSE G., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CASE NO. 2:24-cv-545-JTA ) (WO) FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of ) Social Security, ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER Before the Court is the motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), filed by Plaintiff. (Doc. No. 24.) Plaintiff seeks fees in the amount of $8,324.39. (Id.) The Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”), does not oppose the motion. (Doc. No. 28.) Under the EAJA, a federal court must award a Social Security claimant attorney’s fees if the Commissioner’s position in the litigation was not “substantially justified” and no other “special circumstances” exist that would “make an award unjust.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A); see also Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 796 (2002). A position is substantially justified “when it has a reasonable basis in both law and fact.” United States v. Douglas, 55 F.3d 584, 588 (11th Cir. 1995). The Commissioner “bears the burden of showing that its position was substantially justified.” City of Brunswick v. United States, 849 F.2d 501, 504 (11th Cir. 1988). The Court reversed the Commissioner’s decision and remanded this case for further administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Docs. No. 22, 23.) Plaintiff thus is a prevailing party. Because the Commissioner does not oppose Plaintiff's motion and has offered nothing to carry the burden of proving his position was substantially justified, the Court finds the Commissioner’s position was not substantially justified and Plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorney fees under the EAJA. Accordingly, itis ORDERED as follows: 1. The unopposed motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (Doc. No. 24) is GRANTED. 2. The plaintiff is hereby AWARDED fees in the amount of $8,324.39, subject to any offset applicable under 31 U.S.C. § 3716.! 3. The check should be mailed to Jesse Gray, c/o Anna L. King, Ludlum & King LLC, P.O. Box 1809, Auburn, AL 36831. DONE this 13th day of January, 2026.

JERUSHA T. ADAMS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

June 14, 2010, the United States Supreme Court decided Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010), wherein the Court unambiguously held that attorney’s fees are awarded to the prevailing litigant — not to prevailing litigant’s attorney — and are therefore subject to any offset for debts.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Jesse G. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jesse-g-v-frank-bisignano-commissioner-of-social-security-almd-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack