John Huston Hulbert v. United States

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: June 16, 2026
• Docket: 1:21-cv-00623
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 ERIC GRANT United States Attorney 2 MATHEW W. PILE Head of Program Litigation 1 3 Social Security Administration | Law & Policy MARGARET BRANICK-ABILLA, CSBN 223600 4 Special Assistant United States Attorney 5 Program Litigation 1 Social Security Administration | Law & Policy 6 6401 Security Boulevard Baltimore, MD 21235 7 Telephone: (510) 970-4809 Email: Margaret.Branick-Abilla@ssa.gov 8

9 Attorneys for Defendant

10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 JOHN HUSTON HULBERT, Civil No. 1:21-cv-00623-SKO 14 Plaintiff, 15 STIPULATION TO REOPEN CASE AND SET vs. BRIEFING SCHEDULE; ORDER 16

17 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, (Doc. 14)

18 Defendant.

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between the parties, through their respective 2 counsel of record, that this Court reopen this case and set a briefing schedule. In support of this 3 stipulation, the parties state: 4 Plaintiff instituted this civil action to appeal an adverse decision of the Commissioner 5 denying his applications for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income 6 benefits under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. On October 4, 2021, the Court 7 remanded this case to the Commissioner pursuant to the sixth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) 8 (ECF no. 13). 9 After a sentence six remand, the Commissioner is statutorily required to return to the 10 district court and file “any such additional and modified findings of fact and decision . . . .” 12 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); see also Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 98 (1991) (explaining that a 13 district court retains jurisdiction over Social Security cases remanded under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), 14 sentence six, and where the final administrative decision is not fully favorable to the claimant, 15 the Commissioner must return to court after completion of the administrative proceedings, 16 inform the Court of his findings of fact and decision, and file a transcript of the administrative 17 record). The Commissioner now returns to this Court to report that the post-remand administrative proceedings have concluded. 18 On remand, the Commissioner, through an administrative law judge (ALJ), issued an 19 unfavorable decision dated December 31, 2025 finding Plaintiff not disabled. The time has 20 expired for Plaintiff to file exceptions to the ALJ’s decision and for the Appeals Council to 21 review the case on its own motion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.984, 416.1484. Accordingly, 22 administrative proceedings are complete, and this case is ready for further district court 23 proceedings. See Carrol v. Sullivan, 802 F. Supp. 295, 300 (C.D. Cal. 1992) (“[A] sentence six 24 remand, because of clear language in the social security statute, implies and necessarily involves 25 a reservation of jurisdiction for the future and contemplates further proceedings in the district 26 court and a final judgment at the conclusion thereof.”) (paraphrasing and quoting Melkonyan). 27 The parties therefore request that the Court reopen this case to resolve its sentence six 28 jurisdiction. The parties respectfully request that the Court set the following briefing schedule 1 for Plaintiff’s challenge to the Commissioner’s unfavorable decision: 2 • Within 14 days of the entry of the Court’s order on this stipulation, Defendant will 3 file the Certified Administrative Record (“CAR”); 4 • Within 30 days after service of the CAR, Plaintiff will file an opening brief; 5 • Within 30 days after service of Plaintiff’s brief, Defendant will file a responsive 6 brief; and 7 • Within 14 days after service of Defendant’s brief, Plaintiff may file an optional reply 8 brief. 9 Respectfully submitted,

10 Dated: June 15, 2026 PENA AND BROMBERG, PC

12 By: /s/ Jonathan Pena* JONATHAN PENA 13 Attorneys for Plaintiff 14 [*As authorized by e-mail on Jun. 15, 2026]

15 Dated: June 16, 2026 ERIC GRANT 16 United States Attorney 17 MATHEW W. PILE Head of Program Litigation 1 18 Social Security Administration | Law & Policy

19 By: /s/ Margaret Branick-Abilla MARGARET BRANICK-ABILLA 20 Special Assistant United States Attorney 21 Attorneys for Defendant

23 24 25 26 27 28 1 ORDER 2 Pursuant to the parties’ foregoing stipulation to reopen this case and set a briefing schedule 3 following remand under the sixth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (Doc. 14), the Court hereby 4 ORDERS that: 5 • The case is reopened; 6 • The Certified Administrative Record (“CAR”) is due within 14 days of the entry of this 7 Order; 8 • Plaintiff’s Opening Brief is due within 30 days of the date the CAR is filed; 9 • Defendant’s Responsive Brief is due within 30 days of the date the Opening Brief is filed; 10 and 12 • Plaintiff’s Optional Reply Brief is due within 14 days of the date the response is filed. 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED.

15 Dated: June 16, 2026 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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