Hernandez v. Saul
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Steve B. Chu (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff moved to alter or amend the judgment to vacate a civil judgment entered after a sentence six remand order. The Court granted the motion, vacated the judgment, and retained jurisdiction over the case.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment of the Court granted“Given that the case has been remanded for further administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence six, the Court VACATES the December 8, 2023, Judgment entered following the Court’s December 8, 2023, Order for a sentence six remand.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that a sentence six remand is not a final judgment for purposes of closing the case or starting the appeal clock. The entry of a 'Case is closed' judgment was inconsistent with the nature of the remand order. Vacating the judgment and retaining jurisdiction is the standard procedural mechanism to keep the case active during the administrative proceedings. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the distinction between sentence four and sentence six remands established in Ninth Circuit precedent. It accurately notes that a sentence six remand keeps the court's jurisdiction active and that a 'closed' judgment is procedurally improper in this context. The reasoning is concise and directly addresses the procedural error in the clerk's entry.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RAMON HERNANDEZ, Case No.: 21-CV-225-SBC 11 Plaintiff, 12 ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION v. TO ALTER OR AMEND THE 13 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT KILOLO KIJAKAZI, 14 Acting Commissioner of Social 15 Security, 16 Defendant. 17 18 19 Before the Court is Ramon Hernandez’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Alter or Amend the 20 Judgment of the Court (“Motion”). (Doc. No. 24.) Plaintiff moves the Court to vacate “the 21 judgment and order entered on December 8, 2023,” and retain jurisdiction over the case on 22 remand. (Doc. No. 22.) Plaintiff explains the Court’s December 8, 2023, Order constituted 23 an order for a sentence six remand under Title 42 U.S.C. section 405(g) (“sentence six”), 24 which requires the Court to vacate the judgment entered on December 8, 2023, until the 25 administrative proceedings on remand are completed. See Akopyan v. Barnhart, 296 F.3d 26 852, 855 (9th Cir. 2002) (commenting “Unlike sentence four remands, sentence six 27 remands do not constitute final judgments. Rather, “[i]n sentence six cases, the filing period 28 does not begin until after the post-remand proceedings are completed, the Commissioner 1 ||returns to court, the court enters a final judgment, and the appeal period runs’’) (citing 2 || Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 102 (1991).). 3 The Court concluded its December 8, 2023, Order as follows: “For the foregoing 4 |/reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment and DENIES 5 || Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. This case is REMANDED for further 6 ||administrative proceedings consistent with this Order.” (ECF No. 22.) Thus, the Court’s 7 || Order did not call for the entry of judgment or the closure of this case. Nonetheless, the 8 ||Court is mindful that the same-day issuance of the Clerk of Court’s Judgment in a Civil 9 || Case (“‘Judgment”’) stated that the “Case is closed.” (ECF No. 23.) Given that the case has 10 || been remanded for further administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence six, the Court 11 ||} VACATES the December 8, 2023, Judgment entered following the Court’s December 8, 12 2023, Order for a sentence six remand. The case shall remain administratively closed, but 13 Court shall retain jurisdiction over the Action until the completion of the remanded 14 || administrative proceedings. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 || Dated: January 11, 2024 i Ky F A. fon, SteveB.Ciu 19 United States Magistrate Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28