1

2

3

4 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 JASON E. CALHOUN, CIVIL NO. 1:20-cv-00861-HBK (SS) 9 Plaintiff, ORDER APPROVING PARTIES’ JOINT

STIPULATION UNDER SENTENCE FOUR OF

10 v. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) AND REVERSING FINAL

DECISION AND REMANDING CASE

11 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL

SECURITY,

12 (Doc. No. 17) Defendant. 13 ORDER TO TERMINATE ALL PENDING

MOTIONS AND DEADLINES

14

15 16 Pending before the Court is the parties’ Stipulation for Remand filed June 15, 2021. (Doc. 17 No. 17). Plaintiff Jason E. Calhoun and the Commissioner of Social Security jointly stipulate to 18 remand this case for further administrative proceedings under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) 19 and for judgment to be entered in Plaintiff’s favor. (Id.). 20 The United States Supreme Court held that the Social Security Act permits remand in 21 conjunction with a judgment either affirming, reversing, or modifying the Secretary’s decision. 22 See Melkonyan v. Sullian, 501 U.S. 89, 97-98 (1991) (addressing issue of attorney’s fees under 23 the Equal Access to Justice Act and calculating deadline using date of final judgment). The 24 Melkonyan Court recognized 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) contemplates only two types of remands: a 25 sentence four or a sentence six remand. Id. at 98. A sentence four remand authorizes a court to 26 enter “a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Secretary, with or 27 without resetting the cause for a rehearing.” Id. at 98 (other citations omitted). 28 1 Here, the parties’ stipulation and proposed order seeks remand under sentence four and 2 reversal of the Commissioner’s final decision. (Doc. 17. at 1-2). The parties further stipulate that 3 the Administrative Law Judge should “conduct any necessary further proceedings and issue a new 4 decision with evidentiary support for the findings” and should “reevaluate the medical evidence, 5 including, but not limited to, all opinion evidence... reevaluate Plaintiff's maximum residual 6 functional capacity...evaluate further whether Plaintiff has the residual functional capacity to 7 perform his past relevant work or any other work and, if appropriate, obtain supplemental 8 vocational expert testimony to assist in determining what jobs exist, if any, for Plaintiff given his 9 age, education, and work experience and residual functional capacity,” and update the 10 administrative record “as warranted.” (id. ). 11 Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: 12 1. The Court APPROVES the parties’ Joint Stipulation (Doc. No. 17). 13 2. The Commissioner of Social Security’s decision is REVERSED, judgment shall 14 be entered in favor of Plaintiff, and this case is REMANDED to the Commissioner of Social 15 Security for further proceedings consistent with the parties’ Joint Stipulation and this Order under 16 sentence four, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 17 3. The Clerk is respectfully requested to terminate any pending motions/deadlines 18 and close this case. 19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

| pated: June 16,2021 Wiha. □□ fares Back 22 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 53 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24 25 26 27 28