Gilbert v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 20

STIPULATION and ORDER CASE CLOSED signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 06/16/17 ORDERING that this action is RE-OPENED; Judgment is entered for the plaintiff; and this action is CLOSED. CASE CLOSED (Benson, A)

1
2
3
4
5

HADLEY & FRAULOB
A Professional Law Corporation
230 Fifth Street
Marysville, CA 95901
[phone]
FAX [phone]
JOSEPH C. FRAULOB – CA State Bar #194355
Attorney For Plaintiff

6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11

TERESA GILBERT,
12

Plaintiff,

No. 2:11-cv-00039-DAD

13

vs.
14

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO REOPEN
CASE FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

15

CAROLYN COLVIN,

16

Commissioner of Social Security,

17
18

Defendant
Pursuant to the Court’s March 12, 2012 order of remand, the above-captioned case was

19

remanded to defendant Commissioner of Social Security for further administrative proceedings,

20

pursuant to sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Administrative proceedings have now been

21

completed, with a decision partially favorable to the plaintiff issued on May 20, 2013.

22

The parties therefore hereby stipulate that the case may be reopened for the purpose of

23

thereafter having judgment entered for the plaintiff. Reopening rather than the filing of a new

24

case is appropriate.

25
26
27
28

“‘[A] sentence six remand, because of clear language in the social security statute,
implies and necessarily involves a reservation of jurisdiction for the future and
contemplates further proceedings in the district court and a final judgment at the
conclusion thereof. A sentence six remand judgment ... is therefore always
interlocutory and never a ‘final” judgment.’”

-1-

1

Carrol v. Sullivan, 802 F. Supp. 295, 300 (C.D. Cal. 1992) (Baird, D.J.) (paraphrasing and

2

quoting from Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 101-03 (1991)).

3

Thus, in a sentence six remand case, the Court retains jurisdiction following the remand

4

of a Social Security cases remanded under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), sentence six, and where the final

5

administrative decision is favorable to one party or the other, the Commissioner is to return to

6

Court following completion of the administrative proceedings on remand so that the Court may

7

enter a final judgment, in this case for Plaintiff. See Melkonyan, 501 U.S. at 102; see also

8

Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 298-300 (1993) (discussing and construing Melkonyan and

9

distinctions between sentence four and sentence six remands).

10

It is therefore appropriate to reopen this case in order to resolve the Court’s sentence six

11

jurisdiction and the parties stipulate that the Court should do so. Plaintiff is lodging a proposed

12

order and judgment concurrent with the filing of this stipulation.

13

DATE: March 18, 2015

By /s/ Joseph Clayton Fraulob
JOSEPH CLAYTON FRAULOB
Attorney for plaintiff

DATE: March 18, 2015

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER
United States Attorney

14
15
16
17
18
19
20

By /s/ Theophous H. Reagans
(As authorized via email)
THEOPHOUS H. REAGANS
Special Assistant United States Attorney

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-

ORDER

1
2

Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, IT IS ORDERED that:

3

1. This action is re-opened;

4

2. Judgement is entered for the plaintiff; and

5

3. This action is closed.

6

Dated: June 16, 2015

7
8
9
10

Ddad1\orders.soc sec
gilbert0039.stip.reopen.ord.doc

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-3-