Case Name in Social Security Case - Unavailable

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
KEDRICK WILSON 	CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO. 24-515-SDJ
COMMISSIONER
OF SOCIAL SECURITY
RULING AND ORDER
Before the Court is a Motion for Attorney Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act
(R. Doc. 22) filed by Plaintiff Kedrick Wilson. The Commissioner of Social Security filed an
Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Award of Attorney’s Fees. (R. Doc. 23). Plaintiff seeks
$15,077.12 in attorney’s fees under the EAJA. The Court finds that his fee application should be
reduced to reflect the customary rate for social security appeals in this district—$175.00—and to
deduct hours that do not relate to this civil action or are vague and/or administrative in nature.
Therefore, the Court reduces Plaintiff’s recoverable fees to $5,250.00 for work performed by
attorneys (30 hours at $175.00 per hour) and $2,493.75 for work performed by a law student (33.25
hours at $75.00 per hour) for a total of $7,743.75.
I. 	Background
In this action, Plaintiff appealed the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration’s
denial of his application for “Social Security Disability and/or Supplemental Security Income
Benefits.”1 	Plaintiff filed a Memorandum in Support of Appeal on October 25, 2025.2 	The
Commissioner, in response, filed an Unopposed Motion to Reverse and Remand Under Sentence
Four of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), in which he requested that the matter be
1 R. Doc. 1.
2 R. Doc. 14.
Case 3:24-cv-00515-SDJ Document 24 03/16/26 Page 1 of 9

2
remanded “to further develop the record, conduct additional administrative proceedings, and issue
a new decision.” 3 This Court, on March 17, 2025, issued an Order remanding the case for further
administrative proceedings.4 	Plaintiff then filed his Motion for Attorney Fees Pursuant to the
Equal Access to Justice Act on June 13, 2025, seeking a fee award under the EAJA of $15, 077.12.5
Plaintiff seeks compensation for 16.50 hours of attorney work in 2023 totaling $3,487.30, 33.75
hours of attorney work in 2024 totaling $8,139.82, and 46 hours in law student work totaling
$3,450 for a combined total of $15,077.12.6 Plaintiff moves this Court grant an hourly rate of
$233.17 for the work performed in 2023 and an hourly rate of $241.18 for the work performed in
2024.7 The Commissioner filed an Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Award of Attorney Fees
on July 7, 2025, arguing that the “Court should reduce recoverable fees to $7,743.75—which
reflects the reasonable hourly rate awarded in this district for social security appeals and a
reduction of hours that do not relate to fees incurred in this civil action or are vague and/or
administrative in nature.”8
II. 	Law and Analysis
The EAJA provides that a court shall award attorney fees and costs to a prevailing party in
a civil action brought against the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2412. Attorney fees shall be awarded
to a prevailing party “unless the court finds that the position of the United States was substantially
justified or special circumstances make an award unjust.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). There is no
dispute that Plaintiff is the prevailing party and is, therefore, entitled to an award of fees and costs
under the EAJA.
3 R. Doc. 19 at 1.
4 R. Doc. 20.
5 R. Doc. 22.
6 R. Doc. 22 at 1.
7 R. Doc. 22 at 3.
8 R. Doc. 23 at 1.
Case 3:24-cv-00515-SDJ Document 24 03/16/26 Page 2 of 9

3
Plaintiff seeks $15,077.12 in attorney’s fees under the EAJA.9 This amount accounts for
16.50 hours of attorney work in 2023 at $233.17 per hour; 33.75 hours in 2024 at $241.18 per
hour; and 46 hours of work performed by a law student at $75.00 per hour.10 For the reasons stated
below, the Court reduces the recoverable fees to $7,743.75—which reflects the reasonable hourly
rate awarded in this district for social security appeals and a reduction of hours that do not relate
to fees incurred in this civil action or are vague and/or administrative in nature.
Plaintiff requests that the Court apply an hourly rate of $233.17 for work his attorneys
performed in 2023 and $241.18 for work his attorneys performed in 2024. Such rates have been
rejected in this district in recent social security appeals. This Court has consistently awarded EAJA
fees at $175.00 per hour (or less) in social security appeals. Frank v. O’Malley, No. 24-376-EWD,
2025 WL 1202542, at *3 n.25 (M.D. La. Apr. 25, 2025) (noting that the Fifth Circuit has
emphasized the importance of maintaining uniformity within districts when calculating fee
adjustments under the EAJA) (citing Hall v. Shalala, 50 F.3d 367, 368 (5th Cir. 1995)). This Court
has found an hourly rate of $175.00 to be reasonable in social security appeals. See, e.g., Gann v.
Colvin, 2017 WL 385038, at *3 (M.D. La. Jan 27, 2017), Ricks v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 2020 WL
2130989, at *1 (M.D. La. May 5, 2020). Applying this district’s customary hourly rate—i.e.,
$175.00—for a social security appeal reduces Plaintiff’s recoverable fees to $8,793.75 (50.25
hours x $175.00) for work performed by attorneys plus $3,450.00 (46 hours x $75.00) for work
performed by a law student for a total of $12,243.75. The Court further reduces Plaintiff’s fees
because, as stated below, several entries do not relate to work incurred in the case before this Court
or are duplicative and/or administrative in nature, and thus are not recoverable.
9 R Doc. 22. The Court’s calculation of the hours and rates submitted by Mr. Wilson totals $15,437.13, not $15,077.12
((16.50 hours x $233.17) + (33.75 hours x $241.18) + (46 hours x $75.00)).
10 R, Doc. 22 at 1.
Case 3:24-cv-00515-SDJ Document 24 03/16/26 Page 3 of 9

4
Plaintiff seeks fees for 96.25 hours. This includes 50.25 hours for work performed by
attorneys and 46 hours by a law student. He contends that these hours are reasonable. However,
Plaintiff’s fee application is 140% more than the high-end of the typical range of hours submitted
in a social security appeal. See Noris Giles R. v. Kijakazi, No. 20-1220, 2021 WL 5826780, at *2
(S.D. Tex. Dec. 8, 2021) (“Typically, in Social Security cases, fee applications range from twenty
to forty hours.”). Thus, on its face, the hours submitted are not reasonable. This is particularly so
since 	the 	Commissioner 	voluntarily 	remanded 	this 	case 	before 	submitting 	an opposition
memorandum. So, unlike most social security appeals, Plaintiff was not required to review an
opposition memorandum or submit a reply memorandum. The fee applicant—Plaintiff—bears the
burden of supporting the reasonableness of all time expenditures. See Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461
U.S. 424, 437 (1983).
The Court first notes that Plaintiff may only recover fees under EAJA for time spent
litigating his social security appeal before this Court, not the administrative proceeding. See, e.g.,
Noris Giles R., 2021 WL 5826780, at *2 n.6 (“Courts award attorney’s fees pursuant to the EAJA
only for those hours incurred in the civil action, not the administrative proceedings. The EAJA
provides that ‘a court shall award to a prevailing party other than the United States fees and other
expenses . . . incurred by that party in any civil action, brought by or against the United States in
any court having jurisdiction of that action.’”) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A)); see also
Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 94 (1991) (noting that Section 2412 does not allow for “fees
and expenses for administrative proceedings conducted prior to the filing of a civil action.”).
Plaintiff’s instant lawsuit was filed on June 24, 2024. 11 Yet he submitted billing entries that
date back to November 13, 2023.12 Those entries from 2023 relate to reviewing the administrative
11 R. Doc. 1.
12 R. Doc. 22-2 at 1.
Case 3:24-cv-00515-SDJ Document 24 03/16/26 Page 4 of 9

5
decision and thereafter researching and drafting a “social security appeal letter.”13 Such entries
relate to the administrative proceeding, not the drafting and filing of his federal complaint before
this Court. See, e.g., Jaros v. Astrue, No. 08-1014CAS, 2010 WL 1992197, at *1 (E.D. Mo. May
17, 	2010) 	(citing 	28 	U.S.C. 	2412(d)(1)(A) 	and 	disallowing 	hours 	incurred 	during 	the
administrative process thereby reducing the amount requested from $6,778.46 to $2,547.64). This
results in a deduction of attorney hours submitted for 2023 (16.5 hours). Thus, reducing attorney
hours to 33.75 hours (50.25 hours – 16.5 hours). This number is further reduced by an hour (to
32.75) because of an entry included under the attorney hours that were performed by the law
student and also included in the law student’s hours.14
Regarding time entries from 2024, several are vague and/or are administrative in nature;
thus, not recoverable. Supporting documentation for attorney’s fees must be of sufficient detail to
enable the court to “determine with a high degree of certainty” that the billing is reasonable. Miss.
State Chapter Operation Push v. Mabus, 788 F. Supp. 1406, 1416 (N.D. Miss. Mar. 4, 1992); see
League of United Latin American Citizens No. 4552 v. Roscoe ISD, 119 F.3d 1228, 1233 (5th Cir.
1997) (noting that litigants “take their chances” when submitting vague fee applications). Stated
another way, vague entries are those that are “not illuminating as to the subject matter” or “vague
as to precisely what was done.” Danos v. Panel Specialists, Inc., No. 22-14, 2023 WL 6167152,
at *4 (E.D. La. July 24, 2023), report and recommendation adopted, No. 22-14, 2023 WL 6161017
(E.D. La. Sept. 21, 2023) (quoting Barrow v. Greenville Indep. Sch. Dist., No. 00-0913-D, 2005
WL 6789456, at *11 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 20, 2005), aff’d, No. 06-10123, 2007 WL 3085028 (5th Cir.
Oct. 23, 2007)). Courts have found entries such as “review file,” “preparation of correspondence,”
13 R. Doc. 22-2 at 1.
14 See R. Doc. 22-2 at 2, 3 (6/27/24, Kellie Kirkland, “communicated with middle district e-filing help desk to
troubleshoot certificate of interested persons”).
Case 3:24-cv-00515-SDJ Document 24 03/16/26 Page 5 of 9

6
“review correspondence,” “phone conference with co-counsel,” “legal research,” and “review
email” were vague and did not award attorney fees for these entries. See Danos, 2023 WL
6167152, at *4; see also Hoffman v. L & M Arts, No. 10-0953-D, 2015 WL 3999171, at *5 n.6
(N.D. Tex. July 1, 2015) (“Litigants take their chances when submitting such fee applications, as
they provide little information from which to determine the ‘reasonableness’ of the hours expended
on tasks vaguely referred to as ‘pleadings,’ ‘documents,’ or ‘correspondence’ without stating what
was done with greater precision.”)
Additionally, there are several entries that are administrative in nature and not recoverable.
“It is well established that ‘when an attorney performs a task that could be handled by clerical
staff, the opponent should not be charged the attorney’s hourly rate.’” Kuperman v. ICF Int’l, No.
08-565, 2009 WL 10737138, at *9 (E.D. La. Oct. 13, 2009) (citation omitted) (reducing hours
billed for time attorney spent copying and Bates-numbering documents). “Clerical work includes
copying, typing, labeling, faxing, mailing, filing and/or delivering pleadings/documents.” Id.
Other examples include “finalized and sent complaint to co-counsel”, “prepared civil cover sheet”,
“filed amended complaint”, “prepared summons” and “e-filing motion for approval of partial
settlement.” Danos, 2023 WL 6167152, at *4 (disallowing entries that were administrative in
nature). The deductions below result in a reduction of 2.75 hours for work performed by attorneys
and 12.75 hours for work performed by the law student. The following shows the vague and
administrative entries that the Court finds should be deducted from the total hours:
Jesse Lind (attorney)
6/17/24 	Meeting with Kelli 	Vague 	.25
Case 3:24-cv-00515-SDJ Document 24 03/16/26 Page 6 of 9

7
Todd Hebert (attorney)
6/24/24 	Finalize and file
pleadings
Vague and
administrative in
nature
2
6/25/25 	Finalize and file the
Certificate of
Interested Parties
Vague and
administrative in
nature
.25
8/27/24 	Review email from
the Court
Vague 	.25
Total 	2.75
Kelli Kirkland (Law Student)
6/20/24 	Compiled documents
to send to legal
director via email
Vague and
administrative in
nature
.5
6/17/24 	Met with attorney to
review drafts and
ensure we are ready
to submit this week
Vague 	.25
6/11/24 	Connecting facts with
appropriate
documents to make
numbering easier in
the future
Vague 	1.0
6/12/24 	Investigated Middle
District Court’s
policies and how to
properly apply to
represent in that
federal district.
Reviewed application.
Vague and
administrative in
nature12
1.25
5/31/24 	Completed first draft
of IFP and complaint,
began drafting
documents that will
be needed after filing
Vague and block-
billing
4.5
6/27/24 	Communicated with
middle district e-
filing help desk to
troubleshoot
certificate of
interested persons
Vague and
administrative in
nature
1
Case 3:24-cv-00515-SDJ Document 24 03/16/26 Page 7 of 9

8
6/27/24 	Spoke again with e-
filing help desk to
verify process
Vague and
administrative in
nature
.25
6/28/24 	Aided in SSA
application
Vague and does not
relate to fees incurred
in this civil action
2
7/2/24 	Aided in filling out
SSA application for
the state
Vague and does not
relate to fees incurred
in this civil action
2
Total 	12.75
Applying these deductions brings Plaintiff’s recoverable hours to 30 hours (32.75 hours – 2.75
hours) for attorney hours and 33.25 (46 hours – 12.75 hours) for work performed by a law
student.15
Finally, the practice in this Circuit has been to award EAJA attorney fees directly to the
plaintiff.16 In keeping with this precedent, the award of EAJA attorney fees in this case is to be
made payable directly to Plaintiff and mailed to Plaintiff’s counsel.
III. 	Conclusion
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Award of Attorney Fees Pursuant to the
Equal Access to Justice Act (R. Doc. 22) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff
seeks $15,077.12 in attorney’s fees under the EAJA. The Court reduces Plaintiff’s recoverable fees
to $5,250.00 for work performed by attorneys (30 hours at $175.00 per hour) and $2,493.75 for
work performed by a law student (33.25 hours at $75.00 per hour) for a total of $7,743.75.
15 Plaintiff requested six hours for the entry dated 5/31/24. (R Doc. 22-2 at 6). However, this entry constitutes block-
billing; thus, the Commissioner requested that this entry be reduced by 25% (i.e., to 4.5 hours). See, e.g., Canon
U.S.A., Inc. v. S.A.M., Inc., No. 07-1201, 2009 WL 35334, at *4 (E.D. La. Jan. 6, 2009) (Block billing “can make it
impossible for the court to determine the reasonableness of the hours spent on each task....”) (reducing fee award by
twenty-five percent for block billing). The Court finds the Commissioner’s request reasonable.
16 See Jackson v. Astrue, 705 F.3d 527, 531 n. 11 (5th Cir. 2013) (nothing that “the government pays EAJA fees
directly to the litigant”); Craig v. Colvin, No. 15-583, 2016 WL 4689044, *3 (M.D. La. Sep. 6, 2016) (holding that
under Ratliff award shall be made directly to the plaintiff, not her counsel).
Case 3:24-cv-00515-SDJ Document 24 03/16/26 Page 8 of 9

9
SCOTT D. JOHNSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commissioner shall remit to Plaintiff’s counsel a
check made payable to “Kendrick Wilson” for attorney fees in the amount of $7,743.75 pursuant
to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). 	The check may be mailed to
Plaintiff’s counsel. Full or partial remittance of the awarded fee is contingent upon a determination
by the Commissioner that Plaintiff does not owe any qualifying, pre-existing debt(s) to the
Government. The Commissioner will reduce the awarded attorney fees in this Order to the extent
necessary to satisfy such debt(s) and forward the remainder of the award, as set forth herein.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on March 16, 2026.
S
Case 3:24-cv-00515-SDJ Document 24 03/16/26 Page 9 of 9