Muntrice M. v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration

• Court: District Court, N.D. Texas
• Decided: April 29, 2026
• Docket: 3:24-cv-01162
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

MUNTRICE M., § PLAINTIFF, § § V. § CASE NO. 3:24-CV-1162-BK § COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY § ADMINISTRATION, § DEFENDANT. § MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and the parties’ consent to proceed before the undersigned United States magistrate judge, Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, Doc. 19, is before the Court for determination. For the reasons stated herein, the motion is GRANTED. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff counsel seeks an attorney’s fee award of $5,946.86. Doc. 20 at 2. This amount reflects 20.4 hours of work billed at $255.92 per hour in 2024 and $259.58 per hour in 2025, and 5.8 paralegal hours billed at $125.00 per hour. Doc. 20 at 2; see also Docs. 20-3, 20-4, 20-5. Attached to Plaintiff’s Motion is a Memorandum in Support of Motion for Fees, prepared by Plaintiff’s attorney, Howard D. Olinsky. Doc. 20-6. In this Affirmation, Olinsky contends that an award of attorney fees is appropriate because Plaintiff is the prevailing party and because the Commissioner’s position was not substantially justified. Doc. 20-6 at 2-3 (citing Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292 (1993); Scarborough v. Principi, 541 U.S. 401 (2004)). The Commissioner objects only to the hourly rate charged for Plaintiff’s counsel’s paralegal, arguing that “Plaintiff does not provide market rate information or any other evidence to show that paralegal rates increased from $100 to $125 in the Northern District of Texas.” Doc. 21 at 2. The Commissioner—citing two Northern District of Texas cases in support— contends that the proper award should be $5,801.86, which reflects 5.8 paralegal hours at $100 per hour. Doc. 21 at 2.

II. LEGAL STANDARD Under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), a court must award attorneys’ fees and expenses if: (1) the claimant is a “prevailing party,” (2) the position of the United States was not “substantially justified,” and (3) there are no special circumstances that make an award unjust. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A); Sims v. Apfel, 238 F.3d 597, 599-600 (5th Cir. 2001). Nevertheless, the award of attorneys’ fees must be reasonable. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(b). “The Supreme Court [has] held that ‘a prevailing party that satisfies EAJA’s other requirements may recover its paralegal fees from the Government at prevailing market rates.’”

Nkenglefac v. Garland, 64 F.4th 251, 255 (5th Cir. 2023) (citing Richlin Sec. Serv. Co. v. Chertoff 553 U.S. 571, 590 (2008)); see Richlin Security Serv. Co., 553 U.S. at 581 (2008) (“[W]e take it as ‘self-evident’ that when Congress instructed agencies to award ‘attorney . . . fees’ to certain parties prevailing against the Government, that term was intended to embrace paralegal fees as well.”) (citation omitted); Missouri v. Jenkins, 491 U.S. 274, 288 n. 10 (1989) (“[T]he appropriate compensation for paralegals, law clerks, and summer associates should be determined by the marketplace.”). The fee applicant must produce satisfactory evidence that the requested rates are in line with prevailing market rates for such work. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A); see, e.g., Cater v. Fidelity Nat’l Ins. Co., No. 07-4619, 2009 WL 35342, at *2 (E.D. La. Jan. 6, 2009) (“The applicant bears the burden of producing satisfactory evidence that the requested rate is aligned with prevailing market rates.”) (citing NAACP v. City of Evergreen, 812 F.2d 1332, 1338 (11th Cir. 1987)). Ill. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION Having considered Plaintiff’s motion and the applicable law, the Court finds the request reasonable. Recent district court decisions in Texas have found a $125 hourly rate for a paralegal reasonable. See, e.g., Chappa v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 6:24-cv-69-HJ-BU, Doc. 22, (N.D. Tex. Oct. 3, 2025) (Parker, J.) (finding reasonable a $125 hourly rate for a paralegal that the plaintiffs counsel calculated by adjusting the original rate in 1996 for increases in the Consumer Price Index, which the Commissioner did not object to), adopted by No. 6:24-cv-69- HJ-BU, Doc. 23, (N.D. Tex. Jan. 5, 2026); Lambert v. Comm’, Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 1:24-cv- 159, 2025 WL 3759288, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 8, 2025) (Cureton, J.) (“The appropriate paralegal rate is $125.00 an hour.”), adopted by 2025 WL 3757771 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 29, 2025). Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, Doc. 19, is GRANTED in the amount of $5,946.86. EAJA awards are payable directly to the prevailing party, not the attorney. Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 592-93 (2010). As such, the award here should be made payable directly to Plaintiff but sent in care of his attorney. Jackson vy, Astrue, 705 F.3d 527, 531 n.11 (Sth Cir. 2013). SO ORDERED on April 29, 2026.

/ / .

E HARRIS TOLIVER UNNEDSTATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE