Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-00039/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-00039-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Teresa Gilbert
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

HADLEY & FRAULOB

A Professional Law Corporation

230 Fifth Street

Marysville, CA 95901

(916) 743-4458

FAX (530) 743-5008

JOSEPH C. FRAULOB – CA State Bar #194355

Attorney For Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERESA GILBERT,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CAROLYN COLVIN, 

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant

No. 2:11-cv-00039-DAD

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO REOPEN 

CASE FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

Pursuant to the Court’s March 12, 2012 order of remand, the above-captioned case was 

remanded to defendant Commissioner of Social Security for further administrative proceedings, 

pursuant to sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Administrative proceedings have now been 

completed, with a decision partially favorable to the plaintiff issued on May 20, 2013. 

The parties therefore hereby stipulate that the case may be reopened for the purpose of 

thereafter having judgment entered for the plaintiff. Reopening rather than the filing of a new 

case is appropriate.

“‘[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 ... is therefore always 

interlocutory and never a ‘final” judgment.’”

Case 2:11-cv-00039-DAD Document 20 Filed 06/17/15 Page 1 of 3
-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

Carrol v. Sullivan, 802 F. Supp. 295, 300 (C.D. Cal. 1992) (Baird, D.J.) (paraphrasing and 

quoting from Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 101-03 (1991)).

Thus, in a sentence six remand case, the Court retains jurisdiction following the remand 

of a 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 

Court following completion of the administrative proceedings on remand so that the Court may 

enter a final judgment, in this case for Plaintiff. See Melkonyan, 501 U.S. at 102; see also

Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 298-300 (1993) (discussing and construing Melkonyan and 

distinctions between sentence four and sentence six remands). 

It is therefore appropriate to reopen this case in order to resolve the Court’s sentence six 

jurisdiction and the parties stipulate that the Court should do so. Plaintiff is lodging a proposed 

order and judgment concurrent with the filing of this stipulation. 

DATE: March 18, 2015 By /s/ Joseph Clayton Fraulob

JOSEPH CLAYTON FRAULOB

Attorney for plaintiff 

DATE: March 18, 2015 BENJAMIN B. WAGNER

United States Attorney

By /s/ Theophous H. Reagans

(As authorized via email)

THEOPHOUS H. REAGANS

Special Assistant United States Attorney

Case 2:11-cv-00039-DAD Document 20 Filed 06/17/15 Page 2 of 3
-3-

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

ORDER

Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. This action is re-opened;

2. Judgement is entered for the plaintiff; and

3. This action is closed.

Dated: June 16, 2015

Ddad1\orders.soc sec

gilbert0039.stip.reopen.ord.doc

Case 2:11-cv-00039-DAD Document 20 Filed 06/17/15 Page 3 of 3