1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ELAINE PADRON, Case No. 1:20-cv-01815-HBK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING AWARD AND

PAYMENT OF ATTORNEYS FEES UNDER

13 v. THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT1 14 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, ACTING (Doc. No. 20)

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL

15 SECURITY, 16 Defendant. 17 18 Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulated motion for the award and payment of 19 attorney fees filed on May 25, 2022.2 (Doc. No. 20). The parties agree to an award of attorney’s 20 fees and expenses to Plaintiff’s attorney, Harvey P. Sackett, in the amount of $3,556.31 pursuant 21 to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. (Id.). 22 On April 6, 2022, this Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and 23 remanded the case pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to the Commissioner for 24 further administrative proceedings. (Doc. No. 18). Judgment was entered the same day. (Doc. 25

26 1 Both parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §636(c)(1). (Doc. No. 9). 27 2 The Court apologies for the delay in ruling on the motion, filed as a stipulation. Although the motion is stipulated, when a party requests relief which requires court approval, the parties should file the pleading 28 as a motion, not as a stipulation. 1 | No. 19). Plaintiff now requests an award of fees as the prevailing party. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(a) 2 | & (d)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1); see 28 U.S.C. § 1920; cf. Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 3 | 292, 300-02 (1993) (concluding that a party who wins a sentence-four remand order under 42 4 | U.S.C. § 405(g) is a prevailing party). The Commissioner does not oppose the requested relief. 5 | (Doc. No. 20). 6 The EAJA provides for an award of attorney fees to private litigants who both prevail in 7 | civil actions (other than tort) against the United States and timely file a petition for fees. 28 8 | U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). Under the Act, a court shall award attorney fees to the prevailing party 9 | unless it finds the government’s position was “substantially justified or that special circumstances 10 | make such an award unjust.” Jd. Here, the government did not show its position was 11 | substantially justified and the Court finds there are not special circumstances that would make an 12 | award unjust. 13 Plaintiff requests an award of $3,556.31 in EAJA fees. (Doc. No. 20). The Court finds an 14 | award of $3,556.31 in attorney’s fees is appropriate. EAJA fees, expenses, and costs are subject 15 | to any offsets allowed under the Treasury Offset Program (“TOP”), as discussed in Astrue v. 16 | Ratliff, 532 U.S. 1192 (2010). If the Commissioner determines upon effectuation of this Order 17 | that Plaintiff's EAJA fees are not subject to any offset allowed under the TOP, the fees shall be 18 || delivered or otherwise transmitted to Plaintiff's counsel. 19 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 20 1. The stipulated motion for attorney fees (Doc. No. 20) is GRANTED. 21 2. The Commissioner is directed to pay to Plaintiff as the prevailing party EAJA fees in 22 | the amount of $3,556.31 in attorney fees. Unless the Department of Treasury determines that 23 | Plaintiff owes a federal debt, the government shall make payment of the fees to Plaintiffs 24 | counsel, Harvey P. Sackett, in accordance with Plaintiff's assignment of fees and subject to the 25 | terms of the stipulated motion. *© | Dated: _ August 26, 2022 Mile. Wh. foareh fackte 27 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 38 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE