IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

AMANDA LEA SHADY-GRIFFITH, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-24-386-GLJ ) LELAND DUDEK, ) Acting Commissioner of Social ) Security Administration,1 ) ) Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Claimant, Amanda Lea Shady-Griffith, was the prevailing party in this action under the Social Security Act. She now seeks an award of attorney’s fees in the amount of $1,377.20, pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act,

(d). Docket No. 16. The Commissioner agrees that Claimant is entitled to a reasonable fee award, but argues the total fee requested is excessive. Docket No. 17. For the reasons set forth below, the Court concludes that Claimant should be awarded a reduced amount of $1,146.80 in attorney’s fees under the EAJA as the prevailing party herein and be awarded an additional $567.00 in attorney fees for time expended in defending her request for attorney fees. Claimant’s counsel submitted billing records indicating that his firm expended 3.6 billable attorney hours and 4.7 billable paralegal hours on Claimant’s appeal before this

1 On February 16, 2025, Leland Dudek became the Acting Commissioner of Social Security. In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d), Mr. Dudek is substituted for Carolyn W. Colvin as the Court. Docket Nos. 16-5, & 16-6. The Commissioner argues that this is not reasonable.2 See, e. g., Hensley v. Eckerhart,

(1983) (“The district court . . . should

exclude from this initial fee calculation hours that were not ‘reasonably expended.’ . . . Counsel for the prevailing party should make a good faith effort to exclude from a fee request hour that are excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary[.]”). Specifically, the Commissioner takes issue with (i) 1.8 hours of paralegal time and 0.25 hours of attorney time billed for overhead items or clerical tasks, (ii) 0.3 hours of attorney time for “check- off tasks” and, (iii) 0.35 hours of attorney time on a 1.1-hour entry dated 12/3/2024 for

being improperly billed. Docket No. 17, pp. 4-5. “Although the EAJA provides for an award of ‘fees and expenses . . . incurred by [a] party in any civil action . . . brought by or against the United States[,]’ clerical work and overhead expenses are not compensable.” Villalobos v. Colvin,

, at *2 (D.N.M. July 12, 2016) (collecting cases). Upon review of the paralegal time entries at

issue here, the Court agrees that the entries challenged by the Commissioner correspond to clerical tasks that are not compensable.3 Rodriguez v. Berryhill,

, at *2

2 The hourly rates sought by the Plaintiff are in line with those prescribed by the Commissioner, i.e., $252/hour in 2024 and 2025, and there is no contention by the Commissioner that they are unreasonable in this case. See Docket No. 16, Ex. 2; Hospice Cntr. of Southeastern Okla., Inc. v. Sebelius,

, at *1 n.1 (E.D. Okla. May 13, 2013) (“The court takes judicial notice that the Office of General Counsel, Region VI of the Social Security Administration has provided hourly rates consistent with the yearly average CPI-U.”). Likewise, the Commissioner does not object to the paralegal’s hourly rate of $100/hour. 3 This time consists of (i) 0.6 hours billed on 9/13/2024 for “files received, reviewed, and processed from referral source for attorney review[,]” (ii) 0.6 hours on 10/09/2024 for preparing “FDC contract and other rep documents” for client completion, (iii) 0.3 hours billed on 10/11/2024 for executing “FDC contract” and reviewing other “rep documents” for proper completion, and (iv) -2- (D.N.M. Aug. 1, 2017) (finding initial review of administrative record and preparation of working index to be non-compensable clerical tasks); White v. Barnhart,

, *6 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 18, 2006) (holding “docketing, directing service and preparing client letters” to be non-compensable clerical work). Accordingly, the Court finds the paralegal time should be reduced by a total of 1.8 hours for time spent on clerical tasks. Relatedly, the Commissioner requests the Court reduce Claimant’s 0.5 hours billed to “draft complaint and civil cover sheet” to 0.25 hours on the basis that drafting the civil cover sheet is clerical in nature. “[P]reparing a summons and cover sheet and verifying

service and executing a return of service is clerical work.” Lann v. Colvin,

, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Nov. 10, 2025). “[D]rafting a complaint, however, is not purely clerical work; whether it is in-part clerical depends on its length, complexity, and boilerplate language.” Apachito v. Berryhill,

, at *2 (D.N.M. Oct. 19, 2018). Although the drafting of the civil cover sheet is clerical in nature, the Court finds a

reduction in time is unwarranted here. See Apachito,

, at *2 (noting preparation of the civil cover sheet is clerical, but nonetheless allowing 1 hour of time for time spent drafting complaint); Ramirez v. Kijakazi,

, at *4 (D.N.M. Feb. 22, 2023) (declining to reduce 0.4 hours billed for drafting complaint and civil cover sheet).

0.3 hours billed on 12/12/2024 for “FDC remand referral back to referral source.” Docket No. 16- 6, p. 2. -3- Commissioner next asserts it was unreasonable for Claimant to bill 0.1 hours to “[r]eview notice of appearance by Michael J. O’Malley o/b/o Commissioner of SS,” 0.1

hours to “note all parties consent to Magistrate Judge,” and 0.1 hours to review another notice of appearance because these entries are “check-off” tasks and are minimalistic in nature. Docket No. 17, p. 4. The Court agrees that a reduction is appropriate but only as it pertains to the time billed for the 0.2 hours of time spent reviewing the notice of appearances. Nonetheless, the Court finds Claimant should be compensated to some extent for the time spent on the various minor tasks and concludes that 0.1 hours sufficiently does

so in this case. See Peng See v. Colvin,

, at *7 (E.D. Cal. May 30, 2014) (reducing hours for “check off tasks that should each take no more than a few seconds to accomplish.”); Gossett v. Berryhill,

, at *2 (N.D. Okla. June 29, 2017) (reducing billing entries for “various non-drafting tasks,” from 0.2 or 0.3 hours to 0.1 hours.). See also Ayze v. Kijakazi,

, at *5 (D.N.M. Nov. 17, 2022)

(“Short ‘reviews’ of docket events, such as the assignment of judges, attorney appearances, and deadline notices are no more than looking at the docket or at a document[,]” and are thus purely clerical work.). Lastly, the Commissioner challenges a 1.1-hour entry dated December 3, 2024, for reviewing the administrative record and the ALJ decision for remand negotiations

maintaining that it should be reduced by 0.35 hours. Docket No. 17, p. 5. Specifically, the Commissioner asserts that Claimant could not have spent 1.1 hours on this task because the time between the record being filed and the unopposed motion to remand being filed -4- was only thirty-nine minutes. Docket No. 17, p. 5. Counsel for Claimant argues that this review also consisted of records already in his possession that were provided by prior

counsel. Docket No. 18. This proffered explanation is reasonable, and Court finds that the 1.1 hours billed should not be reduced. In sum, Claimant is to be awarded $856.80 for 3.4 hours of attorney time and $290 for paralegal fees for 2.9 hours,4 resulting in a total award of $1,146.80. Claimant also requests an additional $1,143.000, for 4.5 hours of attorney work expended defending the EAJA fee application. However, because Claimant achieved only

partial success the Court finds a reduction of 50% is appropriate. See Hensley,

. (“But where the plaintiff achieved only limited success, the district court should award only that amount of fees that is reasonable in relation to the results obtained.”); Hardister v. Kijakazi,

, at *3 (D. Utah June 27, 2022) (“Based on the strong preferences against litigation over fees, and the fact that this type of litigation does not

advance Plaintiff’s case, instead focusing on a form of economic relief to improve the financial lot of an attorney . . . the court reduces this request by 75%[.]”). Thus, Claimant should be awarded an additional $567.00, bringing the total award to $1,713.80. Upon review of the record herein, the Court therefore finds that said amount is reasonable and that the Commissioner should be ordered to pay it to Claimant as the

prevailing party herein. See

(d)(1)(A) (“Except as otherwise specifically provided by statute, a court shall award to a prevailing party other than the United States

4 Representing a reduction of 0.2 hours in attorney time and 1.8 hours in paralegal time. -5- fees and other expenses, in addition to any costs awarded pursuant to subsection (a), incurred by that party in any civil action (other than cases sounding in tort)[.]”); see also

Manning v. Astrue,

(10th Cir. 2007) (“The EAJA therefore permits attorney’s fees reimbursement to financially eligible prevailing parties, who make a proper application, and not to their attorneys.”). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees Under the Equal Access to Justice Act,

[Docket No. 16] is hereby GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, and that the Government is hereby ordered to pay

attorneys’ fees in the amount of $1,713.80 to Claimant as the prevailing party herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if the Plaintiff’s attorney is subsequently awarded any fees pursuant to

(b)(1), said attorney shall refund the smaller amount of such fees to the Plaintiff pursuant to Weakley v. Bowen,

(10th Cir. 1986). DATED this 24th day of March, 2025.

_____________________________________ GERALD L. JACKSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-6-