Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-2_14-cv-00464/USCOURTS-alsd-2_14-cv-00464-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

OTIS CHAMPION, )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 14-00464-N

)

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting )

Commissioner of Social Security, )

Defendant. )

ORDER

Social Security Claimant/Plaintiff Otis Champion (“Champion”) has brought 

this action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3) seeking judicial review of a final 

decision of the Defendant Commissioner of Social Security (“the Commissioner”), 

dated September 17, 2014, denying his applications for disability insurance benefits

(“DIB”) under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-433, and 

supplemental security income (“SSI”) under Title XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 

U.S.C. §§ 1381-1383c.1 By the consent of the parties (see Doc. 17), the Court has 

designated the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge to conduct all 

proceedings and order the entry of judgment in this civil action under 28 U.S.C. § 

636(c) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73. (See Doc. 18).

 1 The record reflects that Champion resides in this judicial district. Thus, venue is proper 

in this Court. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 1383(c)(3) (“The final determination of the Commissioner of 

Social Security after a hearing [on a claim for supplemental security income] shall be subject 

to judicial review as provided in section 405(g) of this title to the same extent as the 

Commissioner's final determinations under section 405 of this title.”) and 405(g) (“Such 

action shall be brought in the district court of the United States for the judicial district in 

which the plaintiff resides, or has his principal place of business...”).

Case 2:14-cv-00464-N Document 19 Filed 04/10/15 Page 1 of 3
2

After Champion filed and served his Brief (Doc. 15) and Fact Sheet (Doc. 14) 

listing the specific errors upon which he sought reversal of the Commissioner's 

decision, the Commissioner filed a motion to remand Champion’s case under 

sentence four of § 405(g) (“The [district ]court shall have power to enter, upon the 

pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing 

the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, with or without remanding the 

cause for a rehearing.”),2 representing that Champion does not oppose the motion. 

(Doc. 16).3

Upon consideration, it is ORDERED that the Commissioner’s unopposed 

motion to remand (Doc. 16) is GRANTED. The Commissioner’s September 17, 

2014 final decision denying Champion DIB and SSI benefits is REVERSED, and 

this cause is REMANDED for a rehearing. Securing remand pursuant to sentence 

four of § 405(g) makes Champion a prevailing party for purposes of the Equal Access 

to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412, see Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292 (1993), and 

terminates this Court’s jurisdiction over this cause. Final judgment in accordance 

with this Order and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58 shall issue by separate 

 2 See also 42 U.S.C. § 1383(c)(3) (“The final determination of the Commissioner of Social 

Security after a hearing [for SSI benefits] shall be subject to judicial review as provided in 

section 405(g) of this title to the same extent as the Commissioner's final determinations 

under section 405 of this title.”).

3 Sentence six of § 405(g) provides that “[t]he court may, on motion of the Commissioner of 

Social Security made for good cause shown before the Commissioner files the 

Commissioner's answer, remand the case to the Commissioner of Social Security for further 

action by the Commissioner of Social Security...” However, the Commissioner filed her 

answer (Doc. 12) prior to requesting remand, and her motion does not set forth “good cause,” 

other than that Champion does not oppose remand.

Case 2:14-cv-00464-N Document 19 Filed 04/10/15 Page 2 of 3
3

document.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2)(B), the Court grants 

Champion’s attorney an extension of time in which to file a petition for authorization 

of attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) until thirty days after receipt of a notice of 

award of benefits from the Social Security Administration. See Bergen v. Comm'r of 

Soc. Sec., 454 F.3d 1273, 1277 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (“Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2) 

applies to a § 406(b) attorney's fee claim.”); Blitch v. Astrue, 261 F. App'x 241, 242 

n.1 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (unpublished) (“In Bergen v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.,

454 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir. 2006), we suggested the best practice for avoiding confusion 

about the integration of Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2)(B) into the procedural framework of 

a fee award under 42 U.S.C. § 406 is for a plaintiff to request and the district court to 

include in the remand judgment a statement that attorneys fees may be applied for 

within a specified time after the determination of the plaintiff's past due benefits by 

the Commission. 454 F.3d at 1278 n.2.”).

DONE and ORDERED this the 10th day of April 2015.

/s/ Katherine P. Nelson 

KATHERINE P. NELSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:14-cv-00464-N Document 19 Filed 04/10/15 Page 3 of 3