Cooke v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 23

Stipulation and ORDER to Reopen This Case, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 6/7/2013. (Marrujo, C)

1

8

BENJAMIN WAGNER CSBN 163581
United States Attorney
DONNA L. CALVERT SBN IL 619786
Acting Regional Chief Counsel, Region IX
Social Security Administration
ELIZABETH BARRY CSBN 203314
Special Assistant United States Attorney
333 Market Street, Suite 1500
San Francisco, California 94105
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-Mail: [e-mail]

9

Attorneys for Defendant

2
3
4
5
6
7

10
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
FRESNO DIVISION

12
13
14

PATRICIA COOKE,
Plaintiff,
15
v.
16
17 CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
18
Defendant.1
19

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:11-CV-01478-GSA
STIPULATION AND ORDER
TO REOPEN THIS CASE

)
____________________________________)

20
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between the parties, to reopen the above-captioned

21

22 matter. A previous order of remand, pursuant to sentence six of Section 205(g) of the Social
23

Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), was entered on April 6, 2012, for the purpose of correcting

24
25
26
27
28

errors in the administrative correct and of locating missing portions of the administrative record
1

Carolyn W. Colvin became the Acting Commissioner of Social Security on February 14, 2013.
Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Carolyn W. Colvin should be
substituted for Michael J. Astrue as the defendant in this suit. No further action need be taken to
continue this suit by reason of the last sentence of section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42
U.S.C. § 405(g).
Stip. & Prop. Re Reopening

1 (Order on Remand, Doc. 17). On November 20, 2012, an administrative law judge (ALJ) held a
2

subsequent hearing, at which Plaintiff testified, resulting in a January 11, 2013 decision and

3
4
5

finding that Plaintiff is not disabled.
Under sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), “[t]he court may, on motion of the

6 Commissioner of Social Security made for good cause before the Commissioner files the
7

Commissioner’s answer, remand the case to the Commissioner of Social Security for further

8
9

action by the Commissioner of Social Security.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The remanding court retains

10 jurisdiction when it remands under sentence six. See Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 297
11 (1993) (“[i]mmediate entry of judgment (as opposed to entry of judgment after postremand agency
12

proceedings have been completed and their results filed with the court) is in fact the principal

13
14

feature that distinguishes a sentence-four remand from a sentence-six remand”). In the instant

15 case, this Court remanded pursuant to sentence six, and retains jurisdiction. See id. Given the
16 subsequent unfavorable decision, reopening is appropriate.
17

The parties stipulate to reopen this matter for resolution before this Court.

18
19

Respectfully submitted,

20 Dated: June 6, 2013

/s/ Sengthiene Bosavanh
(as authorized via e-mail)
SENGTHIENE BOSAVANH
Attorney for Plaintiff

21
22
23
24
25 Date: June 6, 2013
26

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER
United States Attorney
By s/ Elizabeth Barry
ELIZABETH BARRY

27
28
Stip. & Prop. Re Reopening

2

1

Special Assistant U. S. Attorney

2

Attorneys for Defendant

3
ORDER

4

Upon are review of the stipulation, the Clerk of the Court is ordered to reopen this case. A

5

6 new scheduling order will be issued setting deadlines in this case.
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

Dated:

June 7, 2013

cf0di0

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Stip. & Prop. Re Reopening

3