Walker v. Internal Revenue Service/ Department of Treasury

Background

Kenneth Walker, identified in the opinion as a state prisoner in Maryland, brought a civil action against the Internal Revenue Service/Department of Treasury. He proceeded without a lawyer and had been allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee. Walker said he had not received his economic impact payments and asked the court to compel the Internal Revenue Service to provide them.

Screening standard

Because Walker was a prisoner seeking relief from a governmental entity, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court had to identify claims that could proceed and dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim for relief, or sought money from an immune defendant. The court also applied the rule requiring a complaint to provide enough factual matter to make a claim plausible, while construing a self-represented litigant’s allegations liberally.

CARES Act payments and the earlier class action

The court explained that the CARES Act created a tax credit for eligible individuals and provided for advance payments of that credit. It also stated that the Act barred issuing or allowing a refund or credit under the relevant provision after December 31, 2020.

The opinion discussed an earlier class action concerning incarcerated people and these payments. In that case, the court declared that the law did not permit the government to withhold advance payments or credits solely because a person was or had been incarcerated. The earlier court also found that the policy treating people incarcerated at any time in 2020 as ineligible was arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful, and entered an injunction requiring reconsideration of payments denied solely for that reason.

The earlier court expressly did not decide whether particular incarcerated people were owed payments or how much they were owed. Those individual eligibility decisions were left to the Internal Revenue Service.

Court’s reasoning

The court determined that Walker was a member of the earlier class. To the extent he claimed that his payments were denied because he was incarcerated, the court said he was not entitled to separate individual injunctive or equitable relief because that claim duplicated the existing class action. The opinion stated that class members seeking additional action generally must pursue it through the class representatives and attorneys, including through contempt proceedings or intervention in the class action.

The court separately rejected Walker’s request to compel payment under the earlier class action or the CARES Act. The earlier ruling did not establish that every incarcerated person was owed a payment; it only barred denial based solely on incarceration and left individual determinations to the Internal Revenue Service. In addition, the statutory deadline for issuing or allowing the payments had passed, so the court concluded that Walker could not obtain the relief requested.

Disposition

The court concluded that Walker failed to state a claim for relief. It dismissed the complaint without leave to amend because it found that no amendment could cure the stated deficiencies. The conclusion states: “The action is DISMISSED with prejudice.” The clerk was ordered to close the case.