ANGEL L. ARIZMENDI v. UNITED STATES

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: September 22, 2025
• Docket: 1:19-cv-01506
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

KIMBERLY A. SANCHEZ 1 Acting United States Attorney 2 MATHEW W. PILE, WSBN 32245 Associate General Counsel 3 Office of Program Litigation, Office 7 Social Security Administration 4 SATHYA OUM 5 Special Assistant United States Attorney 6401 Security Boulevard 6 Baltimore, Maryland 21235 Telephone: (510) 970-4846 7 E-Mail: Sathya.Oum@ssa.gov 8 Attorneys for Defendant 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 FRESNO DIVISION

13 ) Case No.: 1:19-cv-01506-BAM ANGEL L. ARIZMENDI, ) 14 ) STIPULATION TO REOPEN CASE AND Plaintiff, ) SET BRIEFING SCHEDULE; 15 ) [PROPOSED] ORDER vs. ) 16 ) COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, ) 17 ) ) 18 Defendant. ) ) 19 20 The parties, through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate that the Court reopen 21 this case and set a briefing schedule. In support of this stipulation, the Parties state: 22 Plaintiff instituted this civil action to appeal an adverse decision of the Commissioner 23 denying his application for Disability Insurance Benefits under Title II of the Act. On October 24 6, 2021, the Court remanded this case to the Commissioner pursuant to the sixth sentence of 42 25 U.S.C. § 405(g). 26 After a sentence six remand, the Commissioner is statutorily required to return to the 27 district court and file “any such additional and modified findings of fact and decision . . . .” 28 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); see also Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 98 (1991) (explaining that a 1 district court retains jurisdiction over Social Security cases remanded under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), 2 sentence six, and where the final administrative decision is not fully favorable to the claimant, 3 the Commissioner must return to court after completion of the administrative proceedings, 4 inform the Court of his findings of fact and decision, and file a transcript of the administrative 5 record). The Commissioner now returns to this Court to report that the post remand 6 administrative proceedings have concluded. 7 On remand, the Commissioner, through an administrative law judge (ALJ), issued an 8 unfavorable decision, dated November 27, 2023, finding Plaintiff not disabled within the 9 meaning of the Act. The time has expired for Plaintiff to file exceptions to the ALJ’s decision 10 and for the Appeals Council to review the case on its own motion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.984. 11 Accordingly, the administrative proceedings are complete, and this case is ready for further 12 district court proceedings. See Carrol v. Sullivan, 802 F. Supp. 295, 300 (C.D. Cal. 1992) (“[A] 13 sentence six remand, because of clear language in the social security statute, implies and 14 necessarily involves a reservation of jurisdiction for the future and contemplates further 15 proceedings in the district court and a final judgment at the conclusion thereof. A sentence six 16 remand judgment . . . is therefore always interlocutory and never a ‘final’ judgment.”) 17 (paraphrasing and quoting Melkonyan). 18 The Parties respectfully request that the Court reopen this case to resolve its sentence six 19 jurisdiction. Upon reopening, the Parties respectfully request that the Court set the following 20 briefing schedule for Plaintiff’s challenge to the Commissioner’s unfavorable decision: 21 • Defendant will file the Certified Administrative Record (“CAR”) within 14 days of 22 the entry of the Court’s scheduling order; 23 • Plaintiff will file an Opening Brief within 30 days of the date the CAR is filed; 24 • Defendant will file a Responsive Brief within 30 days of the date the Opening Brief 25 is filed; and 26 • Plaintiff may file an Optional Reply Brief within 14 days of the date the response is 27 filed. 28 1 Dated: August 5, 2025 Respectfully submitted,

2 /s/ Shellie Lott* 3 (*as authorized via e-mail on July 28, 2025) SHELLIE LOTT 4 Attorney for Plaintiff

5 KIMBERLY A. SANCHEZ 6 Acting United States Attorney MATHEW W. PILE 7 Associate General Counsel Social Security Administration 8

9 By: /s/ Sathya Oum SATHYA OUM 10 Special Assistant United States Attorney 11 Attorneys for Defendant

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER 1 Based upon the parties’ Stipulation, and for cause shown, IT IS ORDERED that 2 3 • The Certified Administrative Record (“CAR”) is due within 14 days of the entry of 4 this Order; 5 • Plaintiff’s Opening Brief is due within 30 days of the date the CAR is filed; 6 • Defendant’s Responsive Brief is due within 30 days of the date the Opening Brief is 7 filed; and 8 • Plaintiff’s Optional Reply Brief is due within 14 days of the date the response is 9 filed. 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED.

12 Dated: September 22, 2025 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28