IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
NATHAN L. CASTILLO,
Plaintiff,
v. No. CV 21-300 CG
KILOLO KIJAKAZI,1
Commissioner of the
Social Security Administration,
Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION TO AWARD ATTORNEY FEES
UNDER THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Nathan L. Castillo’s Unopposed
Motion for Attorney Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, with Memorandum
in Support (the “Motion”), (Doc. 22), filed March 1, 2022. In the Motion, Mr. Castillo
indicates he seeks attorney fees and paralegal fees in the amount of $6,000.00. (Doc. 22
at 1). Further, the parties agree that “[p]ayment of this amount shall constitute a complete
release from and bar to any and all claims Plaintiff may have in connection with this
action,” and that “if Plaintiff’s counsel ultimately receives an award of attorney fees
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), she must refund the smaller award to Plaintiff pursuant to
Weakley v. Bowen, 803 F.2d 575, 580 (10th Cir. 1986).” Id. The Court, having reviewed
the Motion under EAJA, 28 U.S.C. § 2412, and noting that the Motion is unopposed, finds
the Motion is well-taken and shall be granted.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff be awarded $6,000.00 in attorney and
paralegal fees pursuant to EAJA, 28 U.S.C. § 2412, made payable to Plaintiff but mailed
1 Kilolo Kijakazi was appointed Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration on July
9, 2021.
to Plaintiffs attorney. See Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010) (EAJA fees are paid to
the prevailing party, not the attorney).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiffs counsel receives attorney fees under
both the EAJA and 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) of the Social Security Act, Plaintiff's counsel shall
refund the smaller award to Plaintiff pursuant to Weakley v. Bowen, 803 F.2d 575, 580
(10th Cir. 1986).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
THE HONORABLE CARMEN E. GARZA
CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.