United States Attorney 2 DAVID M. HARRIS 3 Assistant United States Attorney JS-6 Chief, Civil Division 4 CEDINA M. KIM 5 Assistant United States Attorney Senior Trial Attorney, Civil Division 6 JENNIFER LEE TARN, CSBN 240609 7 Special Assistant United States Attorney 8 Office of the General Counsel Office of Program Litigation 9 Social Security Administration 10 6401 Security Boulevard Baltimore, MD 21235 11 Telephone: (510) 970-4861 12 Facsimile: (415) 744-0134 13 Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant 14 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 16 WESTERN DIVISION 17 18 YUSEF HARRISON, ) ) No. 2:22-cv-08242-FMO-PVC 19 ) ) [PPRROOPPOOSSEEDD] JUDGMENT Plaintiff, ) 20 ) v. ) 21 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting ) ) 22 Commissioner of Social Security, ) ) 23 ) Defendant. ) 24 ) 25 26 27 28 1 The Court having approved the parties’ stipulation to remand this case pursuant 2 Sentence 4 of

(g) for further proceedings consistent with that 3 || stipulation and for entry of judgment for Plaintiff, judgment is hereby entered for 4 || Plaintiff.! la fo © | DATED:June 13, 2023 LK 7 HONORABLE JUDGE PEDRO V. CASTILLO 8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ||! 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 unexhausted claims in his habeas 27 || petition without the approval of a district judge, as the magistrate judge’s order was simply “doing what [the] habeas petitioner has asked.” /d. at 1165. While Bastidas is not entirely on point, the 28 || stipulation for remand and entry of judgment here is jointly made by the parties, without any compulsion from the magistrate judge. Because there appears to be no danger of undue prejudice to any party, the Court grants the request.