From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

White v. Astrue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Aug 2, 2011
Case No. 1:10-CV-02117-JLT (E.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2011)

Opinion

Case No. 1:10-CV-02117-JLT Doc. 12

08-02-2011

SYLVIA I. WHITE, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

(As authorized via email) SHANNY LEE Attorney for Plaintiff BENJAMIN B. WAGNER United States Attorney DANIEL P. TALBERT Special Assistant U. S. Attorney


STIPULATION AND ORDER

TO REOPEN AND ENTER JUDGMENT

IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by the parties, through their undersigned attorneys, and with the approval of the Court, that this case shall be reopened for the purpose of entering judgment for Plaintiff.

On January 27, 2011, pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, this Court remanded the instant case to the Commissioner for a new hearing (Doc. 8). The Commissioner was unable to locate two pages from a medical report completed by Plaintiff's treating physician, Lisa Gil, M.D. On May 10, 2011, an administrative law judge (ALJ) issued a fully favorable decision in Plaintiff's case.

Now that the administrative proceedings have concluded, reopening is necessary. In a sentence-six remand case, the Court retains jurisdiction following the remand. See Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 98 (1991) (district court retains jurisdiction over Social Security cases remanded under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), sentence six, and where the final administrative decision is favorable to one party or the other, the Commissioner is to return to the court following completion of the administrative proceedings on remand so that the court may enter a final judgment or, as in this case, a dismissal); see also Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 298-300 (1993).

[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, the Court said, is therefore always interlocutory and never a "final" judgment.
Carrol v. Sullivan, 802 F.Supp. 295, 300 (C.D.Cal. 1992) (paraphrasing and quoting Melkonyan). It is therefore appropriate to reopen this case in order to resolve the Court's sentence-six jurisdiction. Upon reopening, the parties stipulate that judgment should be entered for Plaintiff..

Respectfully submitted,

(As authorized via email)

SHANNY LEE

Attorney for Plaintiff

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER

United States Attorney

DANIEL P. TALBERT

Special Assistant U. S. Attorney

ORDER

Upon the stipulation of the parties, the Court hereby ORDERS:

1. This matter is re-opened for the purpose of entering final judgment; and
2. The Clerk of Court IS DIRECTED to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff Sylvia White and against Defendant Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Jennifer L. Thurston

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

White v. Astrue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Aug 2, 2011
Case No. 1:10-CV-02117-JLT (E.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2011)
Case details for

White v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:SYLVIA I. WHITE, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Aug 2, 2011

Citations

Case No. 1:10-CV-02117-JLT (E.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2011)