Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-05950/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-05950-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

*E-FILED 7/11/07*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

MICHAEL COOK, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant. /

NO. C 06 05950 RS

ORDER

On July 5, 2007, the Court received a respectful letter from plaintiff Michael Cook

challenging the legal accuracy of certain statements made in the Court’s order entered on June 13,

2007, granting defendant’s motion to dismiss without leave to amend. In view of Cook’s status as a

pro se litigant, the Court will deem Cook’s letter to be a motion brought under any procedurallyappropriate mechanism for challenging the June 13th order, including, if applicable, a motion for

reconsideration or a motion under Rule 60 of the Rules of Federal Civil Procedure.

Nevertheless, even deeming the letter to be a procedurally proper motion, it must be denied. 

The letter asserts, (1) Cook holds a legally cognizable property interest in any Social Security

benefit checks issued to him even if any such checks were issued in error and were not actually

received and negotiated by him, and (2) the concept of “constructive receipt” may have some

applicability to Cook’s circumstances. To the extent that anything stated in the Court’s June 13th

order is contrary to the arguments made in Cook’s letter, such matters were not necessary to the

issues decided by the Court and are therefore not binding findings of fact or conclusions of law. 

Dismissal of Cook’s action was premised solely on the facts that “(1) to the extent Cook [was]

Case 5:06-cv-05950-RS Document 67 Filed 07/11/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 

C 06 05950 RS 

2

attempting to state a tort claim, he failed to present an administrative claim prior to filing as required

by the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. 2675 (“FTCA”), and; (2) to the extent Cook [was]

attempting to challenge a decision made by the Commissioner of Social Security regarding the

payment of benefits, he . . . failed to undertake the administrative review process that is a

prerequisite to suit. See 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g) and (h).” June 13th Order at 2:4-9 (footnote omitted).

Cook remains free to make the arguments set forth in his letter during the course of any

administrative proceedings, or, in the event he subsequently satisfies the prerequisites for judicial

review of any determinations made in such administrative proceedings, during the course of any

such judicial review. Accordingly, even assuming the contentions made in Cook’s letter are legally

correct, they would not support a change in the judgment. The “motion” is therefore denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 11, 2007 

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:06-cv-05950-RS Document 67 Filed 07/11/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 

C 06 05950 RS 

3

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT NOTICE OF THIS ORDER WAS ELECTRONICALLY

PROVIDED TO:

James A. Scharf james.scharf@usdoj.gov, mimi.lam@usdoj.gov

AND A COPY OF THIS ORDER WAS MAILED TO:

Michael Cook T-79529

CSP Sacramento

P.O. Box 290066

Represa, CA 95671

Dated: July 11, 2007

 /s/ BAK 

Chambers of Magistrate Judge Richard Seeborg

Case 5:06-cv-05950-RS Document 67 Filed 07/11/07 Page 3 of 3