(PC) Merino v. Gomez ( 2024 )

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 FRANCISCO MERINO, No. 2:21-cv-00572-DAD-KJN (PC) 6 Plaintiff, ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR CLARIFICATION 7 v. (ECF Nos. 204, 205) 8 GOMEZ, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 On October 17, 2023, the parties settled the instant action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12 1983, at a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone. (ECF No. 185.) 13 On October 18, 2023, the action was dismissed with prejudice, pursuant to the parties’ 14 stipulation for voluntary dismissal. (ECF No. 190.) 15 On December 1, 2023, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motions to rescind the settlement 16 agreement and reopen the case. (ECF No. 201.) 17 On April 5 and April 8, 2024, Plaintiff filed motions for clarification regarding the 18 settlement funds available in his prison trust account. (ECF Nos. 204, 205.) 19 On April 10, 2024, the Court directed Defendants to file a response to Plaintiff’s motions. 20 (ECF No. 206.) On April 15, 2024, Plaintiff filed another notice regarding the settlement funds, 21 raising essentially the same contentions as his prior filings. (ECF No. 207) 22 After receiving an extension of time, Defendants filed their response on May 14, 2024. 23 (ECF No. 210.) 24 I. 25 DISCUSSION 26 In his motions, Plaintiff requests clarification as to the deductions of the settlement funds 27 from his prison trust account. (ECF Nos. 204, 205.) Plaintiff submits that he does not owe 28 1 restitution or any other obligations, besides filings fees in four different cases. (ECF No. 204.) 2 In response, Defendants submit evidence that $930 was deducted for required backup 3 tax withholding because Merino could not provide a social security number or authorized Tax 4 Identification Number (TIN); $494.27 was deducted for restitution obligations and related 5 administration fees in two of Merino’s criminal matters; $1,189.28 was deducted and paid toward 6 federal filing fees owed in four matters; and $252.15 was deducted for inmate purchases. At the 7 end of April 2024, the available balance in Merino’s inmate trust account was $134.40. (ECF No. 8 210.) 9 A. Backup Tax Withholding 10 The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) is required by law 11 to withhold federal and state designated tax rates on inmate settlements payments as a backup tax 12 withholding where the inmate payee does not or cannot provide a social security number or TIN. 13 (Bower Decl. Supp. Defs.’ Resp. Pl.’s Mots. Clarification re: Settlement Funds (Bower Decl. re: 14 Settlement Funds) Ex. B [Payee Data Form & Affidavit]; Pearson Decl. Supp. Defs.’ Resp. Pl.’s 15 Mots. Clarification re: Settlement Funds (Pearson Decl.) ¶¶ 2–3.) The current backup tax 16 withholding rates are published on the Internal Revenue Service’s website and the State of 17 California Franchise Tax Board’s website. (Pearson Decl. ¶¶ 2–3.) The Internal Revenue Service 18 currently imposes a 24% rate for backup tax withholding, and the State of California Franchise 19 Tax Board imposes a 7% rate for backup tax withholding. (Id.) 20 “[I]t is well established that settlement payments do not escape the purview of mandatory 21 tax laws” because they “constitute gross income.” Powertech Tech. v. Tessera, No. 4:11-cv- 22 06121-CW, 2014 WL 2538973, at *5 (N.D. Cal. June 5, 2014); see also 26 U.S.C. § 61(a) 23 (defining gross income broadly as “all income from whatever source derived” except as excluded 24 by specific provision in the taxation code). “[W]hen there is a withholding requirement imposed 25 on one party by a governing authority, that party must comply with the requirement as it applies 26 to settlement payments.” Powertech Tech., 2014 WL 2538973 at *5; see also Josifovich v. Secure 27 Computing Corp., No. 07-5469, 2009 WL 2390611, at *6 (D.N.J. July 31, 2009) (finding that, 28 where agreement is silent as to tax consequences, court would not “alter the terms of [the] 1 voluntary settlement agreement and require Defendant to pay more simply because Plaintiff now, 2 after the close of negotiations, is dissatisfied with the anticipated tax consequences of her 3 agreement”). 4 Here, the parties agreed to settle this case for $3,000 at the October 2023 settlement 5 conference. (Minute Order, ECF No. 185; Bower Decl. Supp. Defs.’ Opp’n Pl.’s Mots. Reopen 6 Case Ex. A [Settlement Conference Tr.] at 1, ECF No. 199-1; Bower Decl. re: Settlement Funds 7 Ex. A [Settlement Agreement].) In completing the dispositional documents, Plaintiff could not 8 provide a social security number or authorized TIN for his payee data form. (Bower Decl. re: 9 Settlement Funds Ex. B [Payee Data Form & Affidavit].) Plaintiff was therefore provided and 10 completed a supplemental inmate payee data form affidavit, which advised him that the failure to 11 provide a correct social security number or TIN would subject him the settlement payment to 12 federal and state backup tax withholdings. (Id.) 13 Because Merino certified that he could not provide a social security number or TIN for the 14 settlement payment, CDCR deducted and paid $720.00 of the settlement amount to the Internal 15 Revenue Service, which is 24% of the $3,000 total settlement payment. (Pearson Decl. ¶¶ 2–3.) 16 CDCR also deducted and paid $210.00 to the California Franchise Tax Board, which is 7% of the 17 $3,000 total settlement amount. (Id.) As required by state and federal tax law, $930 total (31% of 18 $3,000) was properly withheld and paid for backup tax withholding. See 26 U.S.C. § 3406 19 (federal backup withholding requirements); Cal. Rev. & Tax. §§ 18661–2, 18668 (state backup 20 withholding requirements and payer liability for failure to comply). The remaining $2,070 21 ($3,000 minus $930) is identified as being deposited into Merino’s trust account on March 21, 22 2024. (Saunders Decl. Supp. Defs.’ Resp. Pl.’s Mots. Clarification re: Settlement Funds 23 (Saunders Decl.) ¶ 3 & Ex. A.) 24 Based on the evidence submitted by Defendants, it is clear that Plaintiff was fully aware 25 of the tax consequences of failing to provide a social security number as he received written 26 notice and attested he was not aware of his social security number or TIN or did not have one. 27 (Bower Decl. re: Settlement Funds Ex. B [Payee Data Form & Affidavit].) Because the law 28 clearly requires CDCR to deduct for backup tax withholdings in such circumstances, $930 was 1 properly deduced from his prison trust account. 26 U.S.C. §§ 3406, 6109; Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code 2 §§ 18661-2; Powertech Tech., 2014 WL 2538973 at *5 (“[W]hen there is a withholding 3 requirement imposed on one party by a governing authority, that party must comply with the 4 requirement as it applies to settlement payments.”) 5 B. Restitution Obligations, Federal Filing Fee Payments, and Inmate Purchases 6 Defendants submit that on March 21, 2024, Plaintiff received a deposit of $2,070 to his 7 trust account with the source listed as “STLMNT CK#05-37199.” (Saunders Decl. ¶ 3 & Ex. A.) 8 Two restitution fee payments were deducted from Plaintiff’s trust account after receiving the 9 $2,070 deposit on March 2024-a restitution payment of $376.74 with related administrative fee of 10 $18.83, and a restitution fine payment of $94.00 with related administrative fee of $4.70. 11 (Saunders Decl. ¶ 4 & Ex. A.) Merino’s restitution payment history report reflects restitution 12 fines owed and paid on March 21, 2024, for his criminal case numbers BA026085 and PB035201 13 for these deducted amounts. (Saunders Decl. ¶ 4 & Ex. B.) This report includes restitution fines 14 owed under Plaintiff’s current CDCR number (CDCR No. AI4722) and former CDCR number 15 (CDCR No. H08837). (Id.) 16 On April 1, 2024, deductions from Plaintiff’s trust account were made to pay for the filing 17 fees in four different federal cases--(1) $315.14 for Case No. 2:22-CV-00520-WBS-DB; (2) 18 $315.14 for Case No. 2:21-CV-00826-KJM-DMC; (3) $315.00 for Case No. 2:22-CV-01132- 19 DMC; and (4) $244.00 for Case No. 2:21-CV-00826-DMC. (Saunders Decl. ¶ 5 & Ex. A.) 20 On April 13, 2024, a sales deduction of $218.15 was made, and a deduction of $34.00 was 21 made for “Radio Nueva” on April 18, 2024. (Saunders Decl. ¶ 5 & Ex. A.) After these 22 deductions, the available balance in Plaintiff’s trust account was $134.40, as of April 29, 2024. 23 (Saunders Decl. ¶ 6 & Ex. A.) 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 Based on the above deductions, totaling $1935.70, Plaintiff's trust account as of April 29, 2 | 2024, properly reflects a remaining balance of $134.40. Accordingly, Plaintiffs motions for 3 || clarification are unfounded as the settlement funds were properly received and distributed, and no 4 || relief from the Court is warranted. 5 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. Zl Se 3 | Dated: _May 16, 2024 OF " 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28