Boyd v. Barnhart

Filing 20

STIPULATION AND ORDER 19 to Reopen. Signed by Judge Ronald M. Whyte on 2/9/10. (jg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/10/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO, CSBN 44332 United States Attorney LUCILLE GONZALES MEIS, SBN CO 15153 Regional Chief Counsel, Region IX Social Security Administration DANIEL P. TALBERT, SBN OH 84088 Special Assistant United States Attorney 333 Market Street, Suite 1500 San Francisco, California 94105 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] E-Mail: [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendant

*E-FILED - 2/10/10*

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA EUGENE BOYD, Plaintiff, ) ) ) v. ) ) MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, ) Commissioner of Social Security, ) Defendant. ) ______________________________) CIVIL NO. 06-07166-RMW STIPULATION TO REOPEN; [] ORDER TO REOPEN

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

19 captioned matter. A previous Order for Remand, pursuant to sentence six of Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), was entered on November 16, 2009, for the purpose of 20 locating the recording of a hearing dated January 31, 2006, and for preparing the administrative 21 record for filing with the Defendant's answer. That task has been completed, and Defendant is 22 prepared to file his answer and lodge the administrative record. 23 Under sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), "[t]he court may, on motion of the 24 Commissioner of Social Security made for good cause before the Commissioner files the 25 Commissioner's answer, remand the case to the Commissioner of Social Security for further 26 action by the Commissioner of Social Security." 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The remanding court 27 retains jurisdiction when it remands under sentence six. See Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 28 297 (1993) ("[i]mmediate entry of judgment (as opposed to entry of judgment after postremand 1

1 agency proceedings have been completed and their results filed with the court) is in fact the 2 principal feature that distinguishes a sentence-four remand from a sentence-six remand"). In the 3 instant case, this Court remanded pursuant to sentence six, and retains jurisdiction. See id. 4 Therefore a reopening is appropriate. 5 6 7 Dated: February 3, 2010 8 9 10 11 12 Dated: February 3, 2010 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 ORDER Based upon the parties' Stipulation to Reopen, IT IS ORDERED that the above-captioned matter be reopened. 2/9/10 DATED: ________________ RONALD M. WHYTE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE The parties stipulate to reopen this matter for resolution before this Court. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Marc V. Kalagian (as authorized via email) MARC V. KALAGIAN Attorney for Plaintiff JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO United States Attorney By s/ Daniel P. Talbert DANIEL P. TALBERT Special Assistant U. S. Attorney Attorneys for Defendant