Clayton v. Commissioner of Social Security

N.D. Ohio

Clayton v. Commissioner of Social Security

DecidedMay 20, 2025

Docket1:20-cv-00553

StatusUnknown

This text of Clayton v. Commissioner of Social Security (Clayton v. Commissioner of Social Security) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Clayton v. Commissioner of Social Security, (N.D. Ohio 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO _____________________________ : EMMETT T. CLAYTON, : CASE NO. 1:20-cv-00553 : Plaintiff, : ORDER v. : : COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL : SECURITY, : : Defendant. : _____________________________ : JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE: On September 20, 2021, the Court remanded this Social Security case for further administrative proceedings under sentence six.1 At the same time, the Court entered judgment.2 Those further administrative proceedings are now done, and the Commissioner of Social Security has issued a fully favorable decision for Plaintiff Emmett Clayton.3 The Commissioner moves to reopen this case, affirm his decision, and enter judgment.4 “[A] district court retains jurisdiction when remanding a social security claimant's case pursuant to sentence six.”5 In sentence six cases, the Commissioner must “return[] to court” “after the post[-]remand proceedings are completed” and file any new decision with that court.6 That court then has the power to review the new decision “to the extent provided 1 Doc. 25. 2 Doc. 26. 3 Doc. 30. 4 5 , 444 F.3d 837, 841 (6th Cir. 2006). 6 , 501 U.S. 89, 102 (1991); 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (sentence six) (requiring the Commissioner to “file with the court any such additional and modified findings of fact and decision” following post-remand proceedings). for review of the original [decision].”7 As such, a sentence six remand does not result in final

judgment. That being the case, the Court should not have entered judgment when it granted a sentence six remand. Construing the Commissioner’s motion to reopen as a motion to vacate the judgment under Rule 60(b)(6), the Court GRANTS that motion and VACATES the September 20, 2021 judgment. Next, the Court exercises its power to review the Commissioner’s new, fully favorable decision. The Commissioner asks the Court to affirm the new decision. Plaintiff Clayton has

not opposed or otherwise responded. So, the Court AFFIRMS the new decision. The Court will separately enter a new judgment reflecting this affirmance. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 20, 2025 JAMES S. GWIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO _____________________________ : EMMETT T. CLAYTON, : CASE NO. 1:20-cv-00553 : Plaintiff, : ORDER v. : : COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL : SECURITY, : : Defendant. : _____________________________ : JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE: On September 20, 2021, the Court remanded this Social Security case for further administrative proceedings under sentence six.1 At the same time, the Court entered judgment.2 Those further administrative proceedings are now done, and the Commissioner of Social Security has issued a fully favorable decision for Plaintiff Emmett Clayton.3 The Commissioner moves to reopen this case, affirm his decision, and enter judgment.4 “[A] district court retains jurisdiction when remanding a social security claimant's case pursuant to sentence six.”5 In sentence six cases, the Commissioner must “return[] to court” “after the post[-]remand proceedings are completed” and file any new decision with that court.6 That court then has the power to review the new decision “to the extent provided 1 Doc. 25. 2 Doc. 26. 3 Doc. 30. 4 5 , 444 F.3d 837, 841 (6th Cir. 2006). 6 , 501 U.S. 89, 102 (1991); 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (sentence six) (requiring the Commissioner to “file with the court any such additional and modified findings of fact and decision” following post-remand proceedings). for review of the original [decision].”7 As such, a sentence six remand does not result in final

judgment. That being the case, the Court should not have entered judgment when it granted a sentence six remand. Construing the Commissioner’s motion to reopen as a motion to vacate the judgment under Rule 60(b)(6), the Court GRANTS that motion and VACATES the September 20, 2021 judgment. Next, the Court exercises its power to review the Commissioner’s new, fully favorable decision. The Commissioner asks the Court to affirm the new decision. Plaintiff Clayton has

not opposed or otherwise responded. So, the Court AFFIRMS the new decision. The Court will separately enter a new judgment reflecting this affirmance. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 20, 2025 JAMES S. GWIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Clayton v. Commissioner of Social Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clayton-v-commissioner-of-social-security-ohnd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack