Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01991/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01991-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Roy Lee Jones
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

On December 17, 2014, the Court found it was not clear from the pleadings that Plaintiff had 

exhausted his administrative remedies, thereby giving the Court jurisdiction to review the decision of 

the administrative law judge (“ALJ”). (Doc. 4.) In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that an ALJ issued 

a decision denying his application for benefits on September 22, 2014. (Doc. 1 at 2.) Noting that 

Plaintiff did not allege that he requested review by the Appeals Council, the Court issued an order to 

show cause to Plaintiff why the action should not be dismissed for his failure to exhaust administrative 

remedies. (Doc. 4 at 1-2.)

Plaintiff filed a timely response to the Court’s order on January 7, 2015, informing the Court for 

the first time that his claim for benefits was before the ALJ pursuant to a remand ordered by the District 

Court in Jones v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., case number 1:12-cv-01283-BAM. (Doc. 5 at 2.) Importantly, 

decisions issued upon remand are not governed by the same regulations or administrative remedies. 

ROY LEE JONES,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,

Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01991 - JLT 

ORDER DISCHARGING THE ORDER TO SHOW 

CAUSE DATED DECEMBER 17, 2014

Case 1:14-cv-01991-JLT Document 6 Filed 01/08/15 Page 1 of 2
2

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

27

28

See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.983, 404.984. If a claimant does not file an exception disagreeing with the ALJ 

and the Appeals Council does not assume jurisdiction over the decision, the ALJ’s written decision is a 

“final decision of the Commissioner after remand.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.984(d).

In light of the new information regarding the decision rendered by the ALJ upon remand, the 

Court’s order to show cause dated December 17, 2014 (Doc. 4) is DISCHARGED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 8, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01991-JLT Document 6 Filed 01/08/15 Page 2 of 2