1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KATRINA REBECCA POWERS, Case No. 1:25-cv-00498-HBK1 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING AWARD AND PAYMENT OF ATTORNEYS FEES UNDER 13 v. THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL (Doc. No. 17) SECURITY, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulated motion for award of attorney’s fees 18 filed on August 21, 2025. (Doc. No. 17). The parties agree to an award of attorney’s fees and 19 expenses to Plaintiff’s attorney, Francesco P. Benavides of the Law Offices of Francesco 20 Benavides, in the amount of $2,084.88 in attorney fees and expenses, pursuant to the Equal 21 Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”),

. (Id.). 22 On July 31, 2025, this Court granted the parties’ stipulated motion for a remand and 23 remanded the case pursuant to sentence four of

(g) to the Commissioner for 24 further administrative proceedings. (Doc. No. 15). Judgment was entered the same day. (Doc. 25 No. 16). Plaintiff now requests an award of fees as the prevailing party. See

(a) 26 1 Both parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 27 §636(c)(1). (Doc. No. 9).

28 1 | & (d)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1); see

; cf. Shalala v. Schaefer,

| 292, 300-02 (1993) (concluding that a party who wins a sentence-four remand order under 42 3 | U.S.C. § 405(g) is a prevailing party). The Commissioner does not oppose the requested relief. 4 The EAJA provides for an award of attorney fees to private litigants who both prevail in 5 } civil actions (other than tort) against the United States and timely file a petition for fees. 28 6 | U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). Under the Act, a court shall award attorney fees to the prevailing party 7 | unless it finds the government’s position was “substantially justified or that special circumstances 8 | make such an award unjust.” Jd. Here, the government did not show its position was 9 | substantially justified and the Court finds there are not special circumstances that would make an 10 | award unjust. 11 Based on the stipulation, the Court finds an award of $2,084.88 in attorney fees and 12 || expenses is appropriate. EAJA fees, expenses, and costs are subject to any offsets allowed under 13 | the Treasury Offset Program (“TOP”), as discussed in Astrue v. Ratliff,

(2010). If 14 || the Commissioner determines upon effectuation of this Order that Plaintiff's EAJA fees are not 15 || subject to any offset allowed under the TOP, the fees shall be delivered or otherwise transmitted 16 | to Plaintiff's counsel. 17 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 18 1. The stipulated motion for attorney fees and expenses (Doc. No. 17) is GRANTED. 19 2. The Commissioner is directed to pay to Plaintiff as the prevailing party EAJA fees in 20 | the amount of $2,084.88 in attorney fees and expenses. Unless the Department of Treasury 21 | determines that Plaintiff owes a federal debt, the government shall make payment of the EAJA 22 | fees to Plaintiff’s counsel, Francesco P. Benavides of the Law Offices of Francesco Benavides, in 23 | accordance with Plaintiff's assignment of fees and subject to the terms of the stipulated motion. 24 | Dated: _ August 25, 2025 Mihaw. Wh. foareh fackte 26 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

28