1 E. MARTIN ESTRADA United States Attorney 2 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 Office of the General Counsel 9 Office of Program Litigation, Office 7 6401 Security Boulevard 10 Baltimore, Maryland 21235 11 Telephone: (510) 970-4827 Facsimile: (415) 744-0134 12 E-mail: [email protected] 13 Attorneys for Defendant 14

15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 16 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 17 EASTERN DIVISION—RIVERSIDE

18 STEVEN PADILLA, CASE NO. 5:23-cv-01346-JLS-PVC 19 Plaintiff, [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT OF REMAND 20

21 v.

22 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting 23 Commissioner of Social Security,

24 Defendant. 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 9 fuk 10 DATED: November 9, 2023 HON. PEDRO V. CASTILLO 11 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 | In Bastidas v. Chappell,

(9th Cir. 2015), the Ninth Circuit held 23 || that the magistrate judge had the authority to grant Petitioner’s request to dismiss two unexhausted claims in his habeas petition without the approval of a district judge, as the 24 || magistrate judge’s order was simply “doing what [the] habeas petitioner has asked.” Jd. at 1165. While Bastidas is not entirely on point, the stipulation for remand and entry of 5 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 party, the Court grants the request. 27 29 || [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT CasE No. 5:23-cv-01346-JLS-PVC