Pacheco v. Social Security Administration
This text of Pacheco v. Social Security Administration (Pacheco v. Social Security Administration) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. New Mexico primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
NICOLAS MICHAEL PACHECO,
Plaintiff,
vs. No. CV: 22-580 KK
KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant. ORDER Upon consideration of the Stipulated Motion for Award of Attorney Fees Under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412, the Court hereby awards Plaintiff $1,663.20 in attorney fees under the EAJA. IT IS SO ORDERED that the Stipulated Motion for Award of Attorney Fees Under the Equal Access to Justice Act (Dkt. No. 25) is hereby GRANTED. Plaintiff is awarded attorney fees in the amount of $1,663.20 as the prevailing party herein. It is further ordered that if, after receiving the Court’s EAJA fee order, the Commissioner (1) determines upon effectuation of the Court’s EAJA fee order that Plaintiff does not owe a debt that is subject to offset under the Treasury Offset Program, and (2) agrees to waive the requirements of the Anti-Assignment Act, the fees will be made payable to Plaintiff’s attorney. However, if there is a debt owed under the Treasury Offset Program, the Commissioner cannot agree to waive the requirements of the Anti- Assignment Act, and the remaining EAJA fees after offset will be paid by a check made out to Plaintiff but delivered to Plaintiff’s attorney. If Plaintiff’s counsel is subsequently awarded any fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §406(b), she must refund the smaller award to Plaintiff pursuant to Weakley v. Bowen, 803 F.2d 575, 580 (10th Cir. 1986). IT IS SO ORDERED this Ist day of February 2023.
tila CUA. A_— KIRTAN KHALSA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Submitted by: s/ Amber L. Dengler Amber L. Dengler Attorney for Plaintiff Approved by email on 1/30/23 by: s/ M. Thayne Warner M. Thayne Warner, Special Assistant United States Attorney Attorney for Commissioner
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Pacheco v. Social Security Administration, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pacheco-v-social-security-administration-nmd-2023.