Crump v. Internal Revenue Service

Background

Steve Crump, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, brought the case against the Internal Revenue Service and others. The court had allowed him to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. He alleged that the IRS denied him a stimulus payment that he believed he should have received under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act.

Court’s analysis

The court conducted the required preliminary screening of a prisoner’s complaint against a governmental entity or its officers or employees. Under that screening law, the court must identify claims that can proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also explained that complaints filed without a lawyer are read liberally, but they still must contain enough factual information to make a claim plausible.

The court noted that Crump’s complaint said the IRS denied him stimulus funds because he was incarcerated. But an attached letter from the President, dated November 27, 2020, stated that Crump would receive a $1,200 check and included the name of his incarcerated facility. The court therefore said it appeared that the defendant may have provided the stimulus funds. The court directed Crump to clarify whether the IRS sent the check but prison officials interfered with delivery, or whether the IRS refused to send it. If he claimed the IRS refused to send the check, he had to provide more information about how he knew that and why the IRS failed to provide it.

The court also required Crump to explain why the case should not be transferred to the Eastern District of California. The opinion stated that he was incarcerated there when the events occurred and remained there, and that he had stated the defendant was located there. The court said there did not appear to be a connection to the Northern District of California.

Disposition

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. The court ordered Crump to file an amended complaint by February 16, 2021, using the case caption and number and labeling the first page “AMENDED COMPLAINT.” The court explained that an amended complaint would replace the original complaint and must include all claims Crump wished to pursue; it could not incorporate the original complaint by reference. The court warned that failure to amend could result in dismissal, and that failure to comply with court orders or keep the court informed of an address change could also result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.