1 E. MARTIN ESTRADA 2 United States Attorney JS-6 DAVID M. HARRIS 3 Assistant United States Attorney Chief, Civil Division 4 CEDINA M. KIM 5 Assistant United States Attorney Senior Litigation Counsel, Civil Division 6 SUSAN L. SMITH, CSBN 253808 7 Special Assistant United States Attorney Social Security Administration 8 160 Spear Street, Suite 800 9 San Francisco, California 94105-1545 Telephone: (510) 970-4857 10 E-mail: [email protected] 11 Attorneys for Defendant 12

13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14

15 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16 WESTERN DIVISION 17 CHRISTOPHER D. WILLIAMS, CASE NO. 2:22-cv-09066-AB-PVC 18 19 Plaintiff, [PPRROOPPOOSSEEDD]] JUDGMENT OF REMAND

20 v. 21 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting 22 Commissioner of Social Security, 23 Defendant. 24 25 26 27 The Court having approved the parties’ Stipulation to Voluntary Remand 2 Pursuant to Sentence Four of

(g) and to Entry of Judgment 3 (“Stipulation to Remand”) lodged concurrently with the Judgment of Remand, IT IS 4 HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the above captioned action is remanded to the Commissioner of Social Security for further proceedings 6 consistent with the terms of the Stipulation to Remand. 7 8 . ° fu Nit 10 DATED:May 18, 2023 HON. PEDRO V. CASTILLO 11 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ——___— 73 ‘In Bastidas v. Chappell,

(9th Cir. 2015), the Ninth Circuit held that the magistrate judge had the authority to grant Petitioner’s request to dismiss two 74 || unexhausted claims in his habeas petition without the approval of a district judge, as the magistrate judge’s order was simply “doing what [the] habeas petitioner has asked.”

25 |) at 1165. While Bastidas is not entirely on point, the stipulation for remand and entry of judgment here is jointly made by the parties, without any compulsion from the 26 || magistrate judge. Because there appears to be no danger of undue prejudice to any 97 || Patty. the Court grants the request. 28 || PROPOSED JUDGMENT CASE No. 2:22-cv-09066-AB-PVC