Ricks v. Social Security Administration

District Court, D. New Mexico·Decided June 26, 2023·No. 1:21-cv-00942·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

STACCATO O. RICKS,

Plaintiff,

vs. CIV. NO. 1:21-cv-00942-JHR

KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant. ORDER Upon consideration of Defendant’s Stipulated Motion for Award of Attorney Fees Under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) (ECF No. 29), the Court hereby awards Plaintiff $7,247.55 in attorney fees under the EAJA, 28 U.S.C. § 2412. The EAJA fees will be paid to Plaintiff but delivered to Plaintiff’s attorney. See Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 595-98 (2010); Manning v. Astrue, 510 F.3d 1246, 1255 (10th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 486 (2008); Brown v. Astrue, 271 F. App’x 741, 743-44 (10th Cir. 2008) (unpublished). It is further ordered that, if Plaintiff’s counsel ultimately receives an award of attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), said attorney must refund the smaller award to Plaintiff pursuant to Weakley v. Bowen, 803 F.2d 575, 580 (10th Cir. 1986). IT IS SO ORDERED.

gh gy, cee Co é KD KES at JERRY H.RITTER United States Magistrate Judge Presiding by Consent

SUBMITTED AND APPROVED BY: Electronically submitted 6/26/23 JENNIFER RANDALL Special Assistant United States Attorney Electronically approved 6/26/23 MATTHEW R. MCGARRY Attorney for Plaintiff

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

Ricks v. Social Security Administration, (D.N.M. 2023).

Ricks v. Social Security Administration (Ricks 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)
Manning v. Astrue
510 F.3d 1246 (Tenth Circuit, 2007)
Brown v. Astrue
271 F. App'x 741 (Tenth Circuit, 2008)