Blankenship v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 34

OPINION AND ORDER: Court GRANTS 28 Unopposed Motion for an Indicative Ruling on its Rule 60(b) Motion for Relief from Judgment filed by Dft Commissioner of Social Security and GRANTS 33 Unopposed Motion for Relief From Judgment Pursuant to Federa l Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) and for Entry of Judgment Reversing with Remand the Commissioner's Final Decision filed by Dft Commissioner of Social Security. The Court's 21 Opinion and Order and 22 Clerk's Entry of Judgment are VACATED. The Court GRANTS 31 Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice Plaintiff's Motion for EAJA Fees filed by Dft Commissioner of Social Security. Pla's 30 Motion for Attorney Fees under EAJA is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The decision of the ALJ denying Pla's application for benefits is REMANDED for further proceedings as agreed by the parties herein. Signed by Judge William C Lee on 5/24/2018. (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. Also before the court are Plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees, filed on March 31, 2018, and
motion to dismiss, without prejudice, motion for attorney fees, filed on April 16, 2016. Finally,
on May 1, 2018, the Commissioner filed an “Unopposed Motion for Relief From Judgment”.
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. 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, and the Seventh
Circuit Court of Appeals has remanded for that purpose, the Commissioner submits that Rule
60(b)(6) relief from the Court’s June 29, 2017, judgment is appropriate. The Commissioner
states that Plaintiff has been advised of, and agrees with, the nature and substance of this motion.
Accordingly, the motion for indicative ruling [DE 28] and the motion for relief from
judgment [DE 33] are both hereby GRANTED. This Court’s June 29, 2017 Opinion and Order
is hereby VACATED. Further, Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss motion for attorney fees [DE 31] is
hereby GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees [DE30] is hereby DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
The decision of the ALJ denying Plaintiff’s application for benefits is hereby
REMANDED for further proceedings as agreed by the parties herein.

SO ORDERED.

Entered: May 24, 2018.

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

2