Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-05950/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-05950-2/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 6/13/07*

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 DENYING MISCELLANEOUS

MOTIONS, AND GRANTING MOTION

TO DISMISS WITHOUT LEAVE TO

AMEND

Plaintiff Michael Cook is presently incarcerated and appears in this action pro se. Although

none of the papers he has filed in this matter, including the document labeled as an amended

complaint, is entirely clear, over the course of his various filings the following alleged facts emerge

as the apparent basis of his claim:

 (1) At some point in or around 2005, Cook learned that the Social Security Administration

(“SSA”) had sent a Notice of Overpayment to him. Cook asserts that he never received the original

Notice, and that he believes it was returned to the SSA as undeliverable, and that SSA records would

show that to be the case.

(2) At or around the same time, Cook became aware that certain Social Security benefits

checks had been mailed to him that he had never received. Again, Cook believes that SSA records

would show that those checks were returned to SSA as undeliverable and that they were never

cashed.

(3) Specifically, Cooks asserts that his benefit checks were returned as undeliverable and

uncashed in the months of November and December of 2001; January and February of 2002, and

Case 5:06-cv-05950-RS Document 65 Filed 06/13/07 Page 1 of 5
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

 Defendant’s first motion to dismiss was granted, with leave to amend, on December 8,

2006.

2

 In a supplemental declaration submitted after the motion to dismiss was filed, defendant

acknowledges that Cook apparently filed a claim under the FTCA on February 26, 2007, and that the

SSA denied the claim. Defendant contends that submission of a claim under the FTCA after

commencement of litigation does not cure the jurisdictional defect. As noted in the Court’s prior

order, Subparagraph (d) (5) of 28 U.S.C. § 2679 provides that when the United States is substituted

as a defendant in an action against a government employee and the action is subsequently dismissed

for failure to comply with the Tort Claims Act, the claimant then has sixty days within which to

present the claim, provided that a claim would have been timely on the date that the action was first

filed. Defendant has not addressed the possible effect of this provision. Nevertheless, the Court

agrees that Cook has not stated an actionable tort claim.

2

October through December of 2002. Thus, a total of seven checks appear to be at issue.

(4) As a result of the foregoing, Cook contends his due process rights have been violated.

 Defendant now moves for a second time1

 to dismiss this action on grounds that : (1) to the

extent Cook is 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”),2 and; (2) to the extent

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

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

prerequisite to suit. See 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g) and (h). The motion to dismiss is granted, without

leave to amend.

As to Cook’s claims that he was denied due process as a result of his alleged failure to

receive the original notice of overpayment, on February 27, 2007, the SSA issued an amended notice

of overpayment that Cook undisputedly received and which expressly triggered a new administrative

appeal period. Additionally, it is undisputed that Cook in fact initiated a timely administrative

appeal in connection with the amended notice. Finally, in subsequent filings in this Court, Cook has

omitted his complaints relating to his alleged failure to receive the original notice of overpayment. 

Accordingly, the Court concludes that any claims relating to Cook’s alleged failure to receive the

original notice of overpayment have been abandoned as moot.

As to Cook’s claims that the seven checks he identifies remain his property, defendant is

correct that Cook must first exhaust his administrative remedies before resorting to Court action

Case 5:06-cv-05950-RS Document 65 Filed 06/13/07 Page 2 of 5
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

3

regarding those claims. Cook has not exhausted those remedies, but now has taken steps to do so. 

Defendant is cautioned, however, that there appears to be at least some factual disputes between the

parties that may need to be resolved as part of, or in addition to, the administrative process. For

example, the SSA’s amended notice includes January and December of 2002 in the list of months

that Cook purportedly was “overpaid. ” According to Cook’s allegations in this action, he never

received those checks. Without opining as to what the legal result should be if those checks were

negotiated by someone other than Cook, it appears that the circumstances surrounding those checks

may warrant some investigation or analysis during the administrative review process beyond simply

determining whether or not Cook was incarcerated during those months.

Conversely, Cook is advised that he does not hold a property interest in, or due process

rights arising from, checks that the SSA may have sent to him in error, if he did not cash those

checks. In other words, if the SSA erroneously sent Cook a check for any month during which he

did not qualify for benefits, either because he was incarcerated or for any other reason, but Cook did

not receive or cash the check, then Cook has no claim if the SSA is not now attempting to recover

for “overpayment”on that check. It appears that Cook is contending that he has some rights with

respect to the checks purportedly sent (but not received or cashed by him) for November and

December of 2001; February of 2002; and October through November of 2002. The SSA, however,

does not appear to be attempting to collect for “overpayment” on any of those checks. Accordingly,

unless Cook can establish in a timely-filed administrative review process that he should have been

sent checks for those months, the mere fact that he contends he was sent checks for those months

(which he did not receive) does not give him any right to those monies or give rise to any due

process rights. 

In view of the above, defendant’s motion to dismiss must be granted. Cook has failed to

allege a claim upon which relief can be granted at this point in time. In view of the fact that Cook

was given leave to amend previously, and in light of the entire record, it does not appear that further

leave to amend would be warranted. Accordingly, the dismissal is without leave to amend, although

it is without prejudice to any rights Cook may have for judicial review upon the conclusion of the

administrative proceedings relating to the amended notice of overpayment. The Clerk shall close the

Case 5:06-cv-05950-RS Document 65 Filed 06/13/07 Page 3 of 5
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 

4

file. No further briefing or motions shall be entertained.

In reaching this decision, the Court has given due consideration to Cook’s status as a pro se

litigant and to his assertion that he suffers from “mental disabilities.” The Court has received and

reviewed every document submitted by Cook, whether or not it complied with the rules of the court.

The Court understands Cook’s contention that this action arose largely from his frustration with his

perceived inability to obtain information from the SSA. On the other hand, the Court recognizes that

the SSA may not be in a position to respond to every request for information where it is unclear

what is being requested or that any response would satisfy. The SSA likely is entitled to rely on its

policies and procedures in responding to requests for information. The Court appreciates that the

SSA provided Cook with instructions regarding filing a claim under the FTCA and regarding the

administrative review process as to the amended notice of overpayment. The Court encourages the

SSA to take into account during the administrative review process the matters discussed herein, and

otherwise to make all practicable efforts to accommodate Cook’s circumstances, in an effort to

minimize the possibility of a subsequent challenge to the adequacy of that process. 

Finally, to the extent that any document submitted by Cook subsequent to the orders entered

herein on March 1, 2007 and April 2, 2007, was labeled as or could be considered a “motion,” such

motion or motions are denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 13, 2007 

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:06-cv-05950-RS Document 65 Filed 06/13/07 Page 4 of 5
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 

5

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT NOTICE OF THIS ORDER HAS BEEN GIVEN 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

H-Unit:E1-106

California State Prison-5101

Post Office Box 5246

Corcoran, CA 93212

Dated: 6/13/07 Chambers of Judge Richard Seeborg

By: /s/ BAK 

Case 5:06-cv-05950-RS Document 65 Filed 06/13/07 Page 5 of 5