Lewis v. IRS ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 DEANDRE LEWIS, Case No. 1:21-cv-01653-NONE-EPG 10 Plaintiff, SCREENING ORDER 11 v. ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO: 12 IRS, et al., (1) FILE A FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; 13 Defendants. (2) NOTIFY THE COURT THAT HE WISHES 14 TO PROCEED ONLY ON HIS CLAIMS REGARDING FAILURE TO RECEIVE 15 ECONOMIC IMPACT PAYMENTS; OR 16 (3) NOTIFY THE COURT THAT HE WISHES TO STAND ON HIS COMPLAINT 17 (ECF No. 1) 18 THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE 19 20 21 Plaintiff Deandre Lewis is a state inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 22 civil action. Plaintiff filed his complaint on November 15, 2021. (ECF No. 1). The complaint is 23 now before this Court for screening. 24 For the reasons given below, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s claims against the IRS and the 25 Department of Treasury1 regarding his failure to receive economic impact payments should 26 proceed past screening. The Court concludes that the complaint does not state any other claims. 27 1 The Court is not making a determination that the IRS or the Department of Treasury are the appropriate 28 Defendants for such a claim. 1 Plaintiff now has options as to how to proceed. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint if 2 he believes that additional facts would state additional claims. If Plaintiff files an amended 3 complaint, the Court will screen that amended complaint in due course. Alternatively, Plaintiff 4 may file a statement with the Court saying that he wants to go forward only on the claims found cognizable in this order. If Plaintiff files a statement that he wants to go forward only on these 5 claims, the Court will authorize service of process on the IRS and the Department of Treasury and 6 the case will proceed on the claims against these Defendants. Finally, Plaintiff may file a 7 statement with the Court saying that he wants to stand on this complaint and have it reviewed by 8 a district judge, in which case the Court will issue findings and recommendations to a district 9 judge consistent with this order. 10 I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT 11 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 12 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a); see 13 Hulsey v. Mnuchin, No. 21-cv-02280-PJH, 2021 WL 1561626, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2021) 14 (screening similar allegations under § 1915A(a) brought against former United States Secretary of 15 the Treasury Steven Mnuchin). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the 16 prisoner has raised claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon 17 which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 18 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). As Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court 19 also screens the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF No. 3). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, 20 or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the 21 court determines that” the action is “frivolous or malicious” or “fails to state a claim upon which 22 relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii). 23 A complaint is required to contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that 24 the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 25 required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 26 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell 27 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). A plaintiff must set forth “sufficient 28 1 factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. 2 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting 3 this plausibility standard. Id. at 679. While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken as true, courts “are 4 not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 5 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Additionally, a plaintiff’s 6 legal conclusions are not accepted as true. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 7 Pleadings of pro se plaintiffs “must be held to less stringent standards than formal 8 pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). 9 II. SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 10 Plaintiff filed his complaint on a “Civil Rights Complaint by a Prisoner” form. (ECF No. 11 1, p. 1). As for the right that Plaintiff asserts was violated, his single cause of action identifies no 12 federal civil right. (Id. at 3). 13 However, Plaintiff states that he has “not received 1, 2, or 3 of [his] CARES Act 14 government stimulus payment[s].” 2 (Id.). He requested a recent credit report from Experian and 15 TransUnion, informing them that his identity had been stolen, but no one wrote him back. 16 Plaintiff submitted two 14039 forms3 to the Department of Identity Theft, but no one wrote him 17 back. (Id.). He also wrote letters to local and state agencies asking for help, but no one wrote him 18 back. He states that all Defendants have failed to intervene in the theft of his identity. (Id.). 19 As for relief, Plaintiff requests that the Defendants investigate his missing stimulus 20 payments and the IRS issue him his stimulus payments. (Id.). 21 III. ANALYSIS OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 22 A. Statutes Providing Economic Impact Payments 23 Three Federal Acts are implicated in this action: the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and 24 Economic Security Act (CARES Act), passed on March 27, 2020, Pub. L. 116-136, 134 Stat. 281 25 (2020); the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (CAA), passed on December 27, 2020, Pub. 26 27 2 Minor alterations, such as altering punctuation, have been made to Plaintiff’s quoted statements without indicating each specific change. 28 3 Form 14039, provided by the Department of Treasury, is an affidavit used for victims of identity theft. 1 L. 116-260, 134 Stat. 1182 (2020); and the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA), passed 2 on March 11, 2021, Pub. L. 117-2, 135 Stat. 4. Each of these acts provided for EIPs (or advanced 3 refunds) to be issued to “eligible individual[s]”: $1200.00 under the CARES Act, 26 U.S.C. 4 § 6428(a)-(d); $600.00 under the CAA, 26 U.S.C. § 6428A(a)-(d); and $1400.00 under the 5 ARPA, 26 U.S.C. § 6428B(a)-(d). 6 Under the CARES Act and CAA, an “eligible individual” is any individual other than (1) 7 a nonresident alien, (2) “any individual with respect to whom a deduction under [26 U.S.C. 8 § 151] is allowable to another taxpayer for a taxable year beginning in the calendar year in which 9 the individual’s taxable year begins,” and (3) an estate or trust. 26 U.S.C. § 6428(d)(1)-(3); 26 10 U.S.C. § 6428A(d)(1)-(3). Under the ARPA, an “eligible individual” is any individual other than 11 (1) a nonresident alien, (2) “any individual who is a dependent of another taxpayer for a taxable 12 year beginning in the calendar year in which the individual’s taxable year begins,” and (3) an 13 estate or trust. 26 U.S.C. § 6428B(c)(1)-(3). Moreover, at least one court has held that 14 incarcerated persons are “eligible individuals” to receive EIPs under the CARES Act. Scholl v. 15 Mnuchin, 494 F. Supp. 3d 661, 689 (N.D. Cal. 2020). 16 B. Plaintiff’s Claims 17 Here, Plaintiff asserts that he has not received from the IRS and Department of Treasury 18 any of the EIPs provided by the CARES Act, the CAA, or the ARPA. (ECF No. 1, p. 3) (“I have 19 not received my 1, 2, or 3 of my CARES Act government stimulus payment[s].”). 20 Given the legal discussion above, the Court will allow his claims against the IRS and the 21 Department of Treasury for non-receipt of EIPs to proceed past the screening stage.4 22 4 The Court notes that some courts have concluded that there is no private right of action under the 23 CARES Act, the CAA, and the ARPA. See, e.g., Puckett v. U.S. Dep’t of Treasury Internal Revenue Serv., No. 1:21 CV 425, 2021 WL 2550995, at *2 (N.D. Ohio June 22, 2021) (“[Plaintiff] has not pointed to any 24 such statute nor has he referred the Court to any statutory or case law authority which would allow him to maintain an action against the United States under the CARES Act for receipt of specific non-disbursed 25 funds. The CARES Act did not establish a private right of action to dispute the IRS’s determination of an individual’s eligibility for the EIP.”); Walters v. Mnunchin, No. 3:21-cv-275-JD-MGG, 2021 WL 26 2105387, at *4 (N.D. Ind. May 25, 2021) (“[T]here is no suggestion there is a private cause of action under the CARES Act for receipt of specific non-disbursed funds. . . .”); Harden v. Yellen, No. 21-cv- 27 0362-BHL, 2021 WL 1515478, at *2 (E.D. Wis. Apr. 16, 2021) (concluding there was no private cause of action for incarcerated plaintiff to recover EIPS under the CARES Act, the CAA, and the ARPA). 28 However, at least one court has allowed a claim to proceed past screening concerning a plaintiff’s failure 1 However, to the extent that Plaintiff alleges that the IRS, the Department of Treasury, 2 Experian, and TransUnion “failed to stop and/or intervene in the illegal theft of [his] identity,” 3 Plaintiff fails to state a claim. (ECF No. 1, p. 3). Plaintiff identifies no legal basis to bring a cause 4 of action (nor is the Court aware of any) against Defendants based on their alleged failure to stop 5 his alleged identity theft from occurring, nor does he explain his basis for concluding that his 6 identity was stolen. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to offer a short and plain statement showing 7 that he is entitled to relief in order to give the Defendants fair notice of what his claim is and the 8 grounds upon which it rests. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (discussing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). 9 IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 10 The Court has screened Plaintiff’s complaint and finds that, for screening purposes, 11 Plaintiff’s claims against the IRS and the Department of Treasury regarding Plaintiff’s failure to 12 receive economic impact payments should proceed past screening. The Court finds that Plaintiff 13 fails to state any other cognizable claims. 14 Under Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “the court should freely give 15 leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” Accordingly, the Court will provide Plaintiff with 16 time to file an amended complaint, so that Plaintiff can provide additional factual allegations. 17 Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-30 (9th Cir. 2000). Plaintiff is granted leave to file an 18 amended complaint within thirty days. 19 If Plaintiff chooses to amend his complaint, in his amended complaint he must state what 20 each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of his constitutional or other federal rights. 21 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). 22 Plaintiff should note that although he has been given the opportunity to amend, it is not for 23 the purpose of changing the nature of this suit or adding unrelated claims. George v. Smith, 507 24 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no “buckshot” complaints). 25 26 to receive EIPs. See Terry v. Yellen, No. 3:21-cv-33, 2021 WL 2587237, at *2 (S.D. Ohio June 24, 2021) (allowing claim for EIPs under the CARES Act, the CAA, and the ARPA to proceed past initial 27 screening). This Court has not found any precedent from the Ninth Circuit on this point. By allowing the case to proceed past screening, the Court is not precluding Defendant from moving to dismiss based on a 28 lack of private right of action or any other grounds. 1 Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, Lacey v. 2 Maricopa County, 693 F 3d. 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc), and it must be complete in 3 itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading, Local Rule 220. Therefore, in an 4 amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each 5 defendant must be sufficiently alleged. The amended complaint should be clearly and boldly 6 titled “First Amended Complaint,” refer to the appropriate case number, and be an original signed 7 under penalty of perjury. 8 Plaintiff has choices on how to proceed. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint if he 9 believes that additional facts would state additional claims. If Plaintiff files an amended 10 complaint, the Court will screen that amended complaint in due course. Alternatively, Plaintiff 11 may file a statement with the Court saying that he wants to go forward only on the claims found 12 cognizable in this order. If Plaintiff files a statement that he wants to go forward only on these 13 claims, the Court will authorize service of process on the IRS and the Department of Treasury and 14 the case will proceed on the claims against these Defendants. Finally, Plaintiff may file a 15 statement with the Court saying that he wants to stand on this complaint and have it reviewed by 16 a district judge, in which case the Court will issue findings and recommendations to a district 17 judge consistent with this order. 18 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 19 1. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail Plaintiff a pro se complaint for 20 a civil case (Form Number: Pro Se 1); 21 2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall either: 22 a. File a First Amended Complaint; 23 b. Notify the Court in writing that he wishes to proceed only on his claims 24 against the IRS and the Department of Treasury regarding Plaintiff’s failure to receive 25 economic impact payments; or 26 c. Notify the Court in writing that he wants to stand on this complaint; 27 3. If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, Plaintiff shall caption the 28 amended complaint “First Amended Complaint,” refer to case number 1:21-cv-01653- 1 NONE-EPG; and 2 4. Failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this action. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: _ December 3, 2021 [sl heey 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28