Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_16-cv-00204/USCOURTS-alsd-1_16-cv-00204-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

GWENDOLYN MARIE IRBY, )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-00204-N

)

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting )

Commissioner of Social Security, )

Defendant. )

ORDER

Plaintiff Gwendolyn Marie Irby has brought this action under 42 U.S.C. §

1383(c)(3) seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Defendant Commissioner 

of Social Security (“the Commissioner”) dated March 22, 2016, denying her 

application for supplemental security income (“SSI”) under Title XVI of the Social 

Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1381-1383c. With the consent of the parties, the Court 

has designated the undersigned Magistrate Judge to conduct all proceedings and 

order the entry of judgment in this civil action, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73, and S.D. Ala. GenLR 73. (See Docs. 19, 20).

In response to Irby’s Brief and Fact Sheet (Doc. 16) listing the specific errors 

upon which she seeks reversal of the Commissioner’s decision, the Commissioner 

filed a motion to remand Irby’s cause for rehearing (Doc. 18) under sentence four of 

42 U.S.C. § 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 

Case 1:16-cv-00204-N Document 21 Filed 11/17/16 Page 1 of 3
cause for a rehearing.”),1 representing that Irby does not oppose the motion.2

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

motion to remand (Doc. 18) is GRANTED. The Commissioner’s March 22, 2016

final decision denying Irby SSI benefits is REVERSED and this cause is 

REMANDED for a rehearing under sentence four of § 405(g). Securing a “sentence 

four” remand makes Irby 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.

Should Irby be awarded Social Security benefits on the subject application 

following this remand, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2)(B) the Court 

hereby grants Irby’s counsel an extension of time in which to file a motion for fees 

under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) (applicable to SSI claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1383(d)(2)(A))

until thirty days after the date of receipt of a notice of award of benefits from the 

SSA.3 Consistent with 20 C.F.R. § 422.210(c), “the date of receipt of notice ... shall 

 1 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.”).

2 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. 14) prior to requesting remand, and her motion does not set forth “good cause,” 

other than that Irby does not oppose remand.

3 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.,

Case 1:16-cv-00204-N Document 21 Filed 11/17/16 Page 2 of 3
be presumed to be 5 days after the date of such notice, unless there is a reasonable 

showing to the contrary.” If multiple award notices are issued, the time for filing a 

§ 406(b) fee motion shall run from the date of receipt of the latest-dated notice.

Final judgment shall issue separately in accordance with this Order and 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58.

DONE and ORDERED this the 17th day of November 2016.

/s/ Katherine P. Nelson 

KATHERINE P. NELSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

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.”).

Case 1:16-cv-00204-N Document 21 Filed 11/17/16 Page 3 of 3