Court, Explained
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Back to docket
Procedural orderFiled June 25, 2026

Nickolas B. v. Bisignano

Judge
John Tunheim
Docket
0:25-cv-03499
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
2
Fee PetitionSocial Security
In one sentence

In Nickolas B. v. Bisignano, Judge Tunheim granted the plaintiff's unopposed motion for $4,771.74 in attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act.

Who this affects

Individuals who have won Social Security appeals and are seeking reimbursement of attorney fees from the government under the Equal Access to Justice Act.

What happened

In Nickolas B. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security (Civil No. 25-3499), the plaintiff sought attorney fees from the government after prevailing in a Social Security case. The plaintiff filed a motion for fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), a federal law that allows prevailing parties in certain lawsuits against the government to recover attorney fees when the government's position was not substantially justified.

The Commissioner of Social Security did not oppose the motion, meaning the government agreed the plaintiff was entitled to the requested fees. Because there was no dispute, the court had a straightforward path to ruling in the plaintiff's favor.

Judge John R. Tunheim granted the motion and awarded the plaintiff $4,771.74 in attorney fees. The order notes, consistent with a U.S. Supreme Court ruling called Astrue v. Ratliff, that the fee award is payable to the plaintiff as the prevailing party and may be reduced to cover any preexisting debts the plaintiff owes to the United States government.

The detailed version

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

Case
Nickolas B. v. Bisignano · No. 0:25-cv-03499
Judge
John Tunheim
Date
June 25, 2026

Background

This is a Social Security appeal in the District of Minnesota. After prevailing in the underlying case, the plaintiff, Nickolas B., moved for attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. The EAJA allows a prevailing party in civil litigation against the United States to recover attorney fees and expenses unless the court finds that the government's position was substantially justified or special circumstances make an award unjust.

The Motion

The plaintiff filed his motion for EAJA fees at Docket No. 25. The Commissioner of Social Security, represented by the U.S. Attorney's Office and the Social Security Administration's Office of the General Counsel, filed a non-opposition at Docket No. 29. Because the motion was unopposed, the court did not engage in a merits analysis of whether the government's litigation position was substantially justified.

The Ruling

Judge Tunheim granted the motion and awarded attorney fees in the amount of $4,771.74. The court stated that this award fully and completely satisfies any and all claims for fees, costs, and/or expenses payable under the EAJA in this matter.

Offset Note

The order references the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010), which held that EAJA fee awards are payable to the prevailing party — here, the plaintiff — rather than directly to counsel, and that the award may be offset against any preexisting debts the plaintiff owes to the United States under 31 U.S.C. §§ 3701(b), 3711, and 3716. This means the plaintiff may not receive the full $4,771.74 if the government determines he has outstanding federal debts subject to offset.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.