Caleb Hester-McCoy v. Commissioner of Social Security

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: June 17, 2026
• Docket: 1:24-cv-01518
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CALEB HESTER-MCCOY, Case No. 1:24-cv-01518-JLT-CDB (SS)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER ON STIPULATION REOPENING CASE AND SETTING BRIEFING 13 v. SCHEDULE

14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, (Doc. 14)

15 Defendant.

16 17 On December 12, 2024, Plaintiff Caleb Hester-McCoy (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action 18 with the filing of a complaint against Defendant Commissioner of Social Security (“Defendant”). 19 (Doc. 1). On March 4, 2025, the Court remanded the action for further proceedings pursuant to 20 sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), due to technical issues during Plaintiff’s administrative hearing 21 that rendered the agency unable to obtain a complete recording of the telephone hearing. (Doc. 22 13). 23 Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulated request to reopen the case and set a 24 briefing schedule, filed on June 16, 2026. (Doc. 14). The parties represent that on remand, the 25 Commissioner, through an administrative law judge (“ALJ”), issued an unfavorable decision on 26 January 13, 2026, finding Plaintiff not disabled, and the time has expired for Plaintiff to file 27 exceptions to the ALJ’s decision and for the Appeals Council to review the case on its own motion. 1 administrative proceedings have concluded, and this case is ready for further district court 2 proceedings. Id. (citing Carrol v. Sullivan, 802 F. Supp. 295, 300 (C.D. Cal. 1992)). The parties 3 therefore request the Court set the following briefing schedule pursuant to the parties’ stipulation: 4 (1) within 14 days of the entry of the Court’s order on the stipulation, Defendant will file the 5 certified administrative record (“CAR”); (2) within 30 days after service of the CAR, Plaintiff will 6 file an opening brief; (3) within 30 days after service of Plaintiff’s brief, Defendant will file a 7 responsive brief; and (4) within 14 days after service of Defendant’s brief, Plaintiff may file an 8 optional reply brief. Id. at 3. 9 A sentence six remand “is always interlocutory and never a ‘final’ judgment.” Carrol, 802 10 F. Supp. at 300. Therefore, in a sentence-six remand case, the Court retains jurisdiction following 11 the remand for further proceedings. See Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 98 (1991) (district 12 court retains jurisdiction over Social Security cases remanded under sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 13 405(g)). Thus, the Court retained jurisdiction in this action, which must return to the Court 14 following completion of the administrative proceedings for final judgment to entered, or for the 15 action to be dismissed. Id.; see Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 298-300 (1993). 16 Because the administrative proceedings have concluded and the final administrative 17 decision is not favorable to Plaintiff, it is appropriate for the Court to re-open the matter and set a 18 briefing schedule for further proceedings, as requested by the parties. See Melkonyan, 501 U.S. at 19 98. 20 Conclusion and Order 21 Accordingly, good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 22 1. The parties’ stipulated request to re-open the matter (Doc. 14) is GRANTED; 23 2. Within 14 days of entry of this order, Defendant SHALL FILE the certified 24 administrative record (“CAR”); 25 3. Within 30 days of service of the CAR, Plaintiff SHALL FILE his opening brief; 26 4. Within 30 days of service of Plaintiff’s brief, Defendant SHALL FILE a responsive 27 brief; and 1 5. Within 14 days of service of Defendant’s responsive brief, Plaintiff SHALL FILE any 2 optional reply brief. 3 | ITIS SOORDERED. * | Dated: _ June 17, 2026 | bo 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28