(SS) Silva v. Commissioner of Social Security

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 DARLENE Y. SILVA, ) Case No.: 1:21-cv-0045 – JLT ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER REOPENING THE MATTER ) 13 v. ) ORDER DIRECTING ENTRY OF JUDGMENT IN ) FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF DARLENE SILVA AND 14 MARTIN O’MALLEY, ) AGAINST DEFENDANT MARTIN O’MALLEY, Commissioner of Social Security1, ) COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY 15 ) Defendant. ) 16 ) 17 Darlene Silva sought judicial review of the administrative decision to deny her application for 18 social security benefits. (See Doc. 1.) The Court remanded the action for further proceedings 19 pursuant to sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g), due to a lack of information concerning Plaintiff’s 20 second application for benefits. (Doc. 27.) 21 Importantly, a sentence six remand “is always interlocutory and never a ‘final’ judgment.” 22 Carrol v. Sullivan, 802 F. Supp. 295, 300 (C.D. Cal. 1992). Therefore, in a sentence-six remand 23 case, the Court retains jurisdiction following the remand for further proceedings. See Melkonyan v. 24 Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 98 (1991) (district court retains jurisdiction over Social Security cases 25 remanded under sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g)). Thus, the Court retained jurisdiction in this 26 action, which must return to the Court following completion of the administrative proceedings for [27] 28 1 Martin O’Malley became the Commissioner of Social Security on December 20, 2023. Pursuant to Rule 25(d) 1 || final judgement to entered, or for the action to be dismissed. Id.; see also Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 2 || U.S. 292, 298-300 (1993). 3 The parties report that following the Court’s remand, “the Commissioner, through the 4 || Appeals Council, issued a fully favorable decision, dated July 22, 2023, finding Plaintiff disabled 5 || within the meaning of the Act.” (Doc. 28 at 2; see also Doc. 29-1 at 3, 9-13.) Therefore, the parties 6 || stipulated that the action be re-opened and agree that “judgment [should] be entered for Plaintiff” 7 (Doc. 12 at 3.) Because the administrative proceedings were resolved in favor of Plaintiff, it is 8 || appropriate for the Court to re-open the matter and enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff, as requested 9 || by the parties. See Melkonyan, 501 U.S. at 98 . Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 10 1. The joint request to re-open the matter (Doc. 28) is GRANTED. 11 2. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff Darlene 12 Silva and against Defendant, Martin O’ Malley, Commissioner of Social Security. [13] 14 IS SO ORDERED. 15 || Dated: _ August 9, 2024 ( LAW pA u bury 16 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE