Blankenship v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 29

OPINION AND ORDER re 28 Unopposed Motion for an Indicative Ruling on Rule 60(b) Motion re 22 Clerks Judgment. Pursuant to Seventh Circuit Rule 57, this Court indicates that it is inclined to grant the motion and vacate the 6/29/2017 judgment, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 60(b)(6), and enter judgment reversing the Commissioner's decision with remand for further administrative proceedings. Signed by Judge William C Lee on 2/22/2018. (cc: USCA) (lns)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
MARGARET ANN BLANKENSHIP,
Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL NO. 1:16cv222

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on the Commissioner’s “Unopposed Motion for an
Indicative Ruling on its Rule 60(b) Motion for Relief From Judgment”, filed on January 19,
2018.
The background facts are as follows. Plaintiff commenced this action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking review of a final decision of the Commissioner. Following briefing by
the parties, on June 29, 2017, the Court entered judgment in favor of the Commissioner. (Dkt.
22.) On August 28, 2017, Plaintiff filed a timely Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Upon further consideration, the Commissioner has determined
that judgment should be vacated and this matter should be reversed with remand for a new
administrative hearing and decision pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) allows the Court to relieve a party from a final
order for “any . . . reason justifying relief . . . .” Because the Commissioner now agrees that the
case should be reversed with remand for further administrative proceedings, the Commissioner
submits that Rule 60(b)(6) relief from the Court’s June 29, 2017, judgment is appropriate.

Due to the pending appeal, this Court lacks jurisdiction to grant Rule 60(b) relief at this
time. Seventh Circuit Rule 57, however, states that “[a] party who during the pendency of an
appeal has filed a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a) or 60(b) . . . should request the district court
to indicate whether it is inclined to grant the motion. If the district court so indicates, this court
will remand the case for the purpose of modifying the judgment.” The pending appeal does not
deprive this court of jurisdiction to consider the motion for an indicative ruling. Brown v. United
States, 976 F.2d 1104, 1110 (7th Cir. 1992).
The Commissioner states that Plaintiff has been advised of, and agrees with, the nature
and substance of this motion. Plaintiff has not filed any response to the motion indicating that
she does not agree.
Therefore, pursuant to Seventh Circuit Rule 57, this court indicates that it is inclined to
grant the motion and vacate the June 29, 2017 judgment, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 60(b)(6),
and enter judgment reversing the Commissioner’s decision with remand for further
administrative proceedings.
SO ORDERED.

Entered: February 22, 2018.

s/ William C. Lee
William C. Lee, Judge
United States District Court

2