1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SUSAN DIANA NICHOLS DOMINGO, Case No. 1:22-cv-00185-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. 16)

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 August 30, 2022. (Doc. No. 16). The parties agree to an award of 20 attorney’s fees and expenses to Plaintiff’s attorney, Francesco P. Benavides, in the amount of 21 $6,018.74 pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. (Id.). 22 On August 25, 2022, this Court granted the parties’ stipulated motion to remand the case 23 pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to the Commissioner for further administrative 24 proceedings. (Doc. No. 14). Judgment was entered the same day. (Doc. No. 15). Plaintiff now 25 requests an award of fees as the prevailing party. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(a) & (d)(1)(A); Fed. R. 26 Civ. P. 54(d)(1); see 28 U.S.C. § 1920; cf. Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 300-02 (1993) 27 1 Both parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 28 §636(c)(1). (Doc. No. 8). 1 | (concluding that a party who wins a sentence-four remand order under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) is a 2 | prevailing party). The Commissioner does not oppose the requested relief. (Doc. No. 16). 3 The EAJA provides for an award of attorney fees to private litigants who both prevail in 4 | civil actions (other than tort) against the United States and timely file a petition for fees. 28 5 | U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). Under the Act, a court shall award attorney fees to the prevailing party 6 | unless it finds the government’s position was “substantially justified or that special circumstances 7 | make such an award unjust.” Jd. Here, the government did not show its position was 8 | substantially justified and the Court finds there are not special circumstances that would make an 9 | award unjust. 10 Plaintiff requests an award of $6,018.74 in EAJA fees. (Doc. No. 16). The Court finds an 11 | award of $6,018.74 in attorney’s fees is appropriate. EAJA fees, expenses, and costs are subject 12 | to any offsets allowed under the Treasury Offset Program (“TOP”), as discussed in Astrue v. 13 | Ratliff, 532 U.S. 1192 (2010). If the Commissioner determines upon effectuation of this Order 14 | that Plaintiff's EAJA fees are not subject to any offset allowed under the TOP, the fees shall be 15 || delivered or otherwise transmitted to Plaintiff's counsel. 16 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 17 1. The stipulated motion for attorney fees (Doc. No. 16) is GRANTED. 18 2. The Commissioner is directed to pay to Plaintiff as the prevailing party EAJA fees in 19 | the amount of $6,018.74 in attorney fees. Unless the Department of Treasury determines that 20 | Plaintiff owes a federal debt, the government shall make payment of the fees to Plaintiffs 21 || counsel, Francesco P. Benavides, in accordance with Plaintiff's assignment of fees and subject to 22 | the terms of the stipulated motion. 23 | Dated: _ September 1.2022 Mile. Wh. foareh fackte 5 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27 28