Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 6, 2023

Roland C. v. Kijakazi

Judge
Dulce Foster
Docket
0:23-cv-00464
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
1
Fee PetitionSocial Security
In one sentence

In Roland C. v. Kijakazi, Magistrate Judge Foster granted Roland’s motion for $6,527.11 in attorney fees and ordered payment to his attorney.

Who this affects

Roland C., his attorney Carol Louise Lewis, and the government are affected: the government must pay the stated fee amount, subject to any applicable offset for Roland C.’s preexisting debt to the United States.

What happened

Roland C. asked the court to award $6,527.11 in attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. He asked that the money be paid directly to his attorney, Carol Louise Lewis.

The government did not oppose the motion or the requested amount. The order states that the fees may be reduced to pay any preexisting debt Roland C. owes the United States.

The court granted the motion and directed the government to pay $6,527.11 to the attorney. Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster signed the order.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Roland C. v. Kijakazi · No. 0:23-cv-00464
Judge
Dulce J. Foster
Date
Sept. 6, 2023

Background

Roland C. filed a motion for attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, a federal law that can authorize fee awards in qualifying cases. He requested $6,527.11 and asked that the payment be made directly to his attorney, Carol Louise Lewis. The government did not oppose the motion or the amount requested.

Ruling

The court granted Roland C.’s motion for attorney fees. It directed the government to pay $6,527.11 to Carol Louise Lewis. The court also stated that, under the cited Supreme Court decision, the fees may be subject to an offset to satisfy any preexisting debt Roland C. may owe the United States.

Disposition

The attorney-fee motion was granted. The order did not address the underlying Social Security dispute.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.