Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01460/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01460-4/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 (SSID)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID R. DOBSON,

Plaintiff, No. 2:09-cv-01460-KJN

v.

MICHAEL C. ASTRUE, 

Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, who is represented by counsel, filed his complaint and application to

proceed in this action in forma pauperis on May 27, 2009. (Dkt. Nos. 1, 3.) On June 17, 2009,

this court granted plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 4) and issued a

scheduling order setting forth, among other things, a deadline by which defendant was required

to file the administrative transcript and an answer or other response to plaintiff’s complaint, and a

deadline by which plaintiff was required to file a motion for summary judgment and/or remand. 

(Dkt. No. 5.) The scheduling order provides, in part: “FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ANY

PORTION OF THIS SCHEDULE MAY RESULT IN SANCTIONS, INCLUDING STRIKING

A MOTION FROM CALENDAR, OR STRIKING THE COMPLAINT OR ANSWER.” (Dkt.

No. 5 at 2.) 

On February 25, 2010, defendant lodged the administrative transcript with the

Case 2:09-cv-01460-KJN Document 28 Filed 08/11/10 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

court and filed an answer to plaintiff’s complaint. (Dkt. Nos. 15-17.) 

On April 6, 2010, the parties filed a stipulation and proposed order seeking an

order extending the date by which plaintiff would be required to file a motion for summary

judgment to May 17, 2010. (Dkt. No. 19.) On April 7, 2010, the court approved the parties’

stipulation and granted the requested extension on the basis that the parties were engaged in

settlement discussions. (Dkt. No. 20.) 

Plaintiff did not file his motion for summary judgment on or before May 17, 2010.

On May 25, 2010, the court entered an order to show cause why plaintiff’s case should not be

dismissed for failure to prosecute. (Dkt. No. 21.) The parties then filed a stipulation and

proposed order seeking another extension of time for plaintiff to file his motion; the parties

represented that they were conducting settlement discussions. (Dkt. No. 22.) The court approved

the stipulation, and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was due on July 15, 2010. (Dkt.

No. 23.) Plaintiff failed to timely file a motion for summary judgment or seek another extension

of time. On July 20, 2010, the court ordered plaintiff to show cause (“OSC”), on or before

August 5, 2010, why this case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. (Dkt. No. 24.) 

On August 8, 2010, plaintiff filed an untimely response to the OSC. Plaintiff

requests that the undersigned consider his reply because a typographical error in the electronic

notice of the docket entry related to the second OSC indicated that plaintiff’s response was due

on August 25, 2010, not August 5, 2010. As an initial matter, plaintiff’s counsel is reminded that

the order is the operative document, not the electronic notice. As counsel intimates, he should

have read the actual text of the order entered by the court, not just the notice. In any event, the

undersigned will consider plaintiff’s response. 

In his response, plaintiff requests leave to file a motion for remand under sentence

six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) because plaintiff has received a fully favorable decision from the

agency on a subsequent benefits claim, and because purportedly new and material evidence exists

Case 2:09-cv-01460-KJN Document 28 Filed 08/11/10 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 Alternatively, plaintiff requests leave to amend his complaint. The undersigned will 1

consider plaintiff’s request for leave to amend after resolution of any motion for remand. 

 Compare Coleman v. Barnhart, No. C 03-0089 SI, 2003 WL 22722816, at *4 (N.D. Cal. 2

Nov. 12, 2003) (unpublished) (stating that “only the Defendant Commissioner can move for such

a remand”), with Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 297 n.2 (1993) (“Sentence-six remands may be

ordered in only two situations: where the Secretary requests a remand before answering the

complaint, or where new, material evidence is adduced that was for good cause not presented before

the agency.”). 

3

that suggests that the administrative record in the present matter is incomplete. The sixth 1

sentence of Section 405(g) provides:

The 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, and it may at any

time order additional evidence to be taken before the Commissioner of

Social Security, but only upon a showing that there is new evidence which

is material and that there is good cause for the failure to incorporate such

evidence into the record in a prior proceeding; and the Commissioner of

Social Security shall, after the case is remanded, and after hearing such

additional evidence if so ordered, modify or affirm the Commissioner's

findings of fact or the Commissioner’s decision, or both, and shall file

with the court any such additional and modified findings of fact and

decision, and, in any case in which the Commissioner has not made a

decision fully favorable to the individual, a transcript of the additional

record and testimony upon which the Commissioner’s action in modifying

or affirming was based. 

42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

The undersigned will grant plaintiff leave to file a noticed motion for remand

within 30 days of the date of this order. No extensions of time will be granted absent

extraordinary circumstances. Because the undersigned has some concerns regarding whether a

claimant may file a motion for remand pursuant to the plain language of sentence six of Section

405(g), plaintiff’s motion shall address whether a claimant may file a motion for remand 2

pursuant to sentence six. Notwithstanding the grant of leave to file a motion for remand, the

undersigned hopes that the parties will continue their settlement discussions, which, if fruitful,

might save the parties further time and expense related to this matter. 

Case 2:09-cv-01460-KJN Document 28 Filed 08/11/10 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

4

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The OSC entered July 20, 2010, is discharged.

2. Plaintiff is granted leave to file a noticed motion for remand, as discussed

above, within 30 days of the date of this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 10, 2010

_____________________________________

KENDALL J. NEWMAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-01460-KJN Document 28 Filed 08/11/10 Page 4 of 4