McCreary v. I.R.S.
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:21-cv-04797
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In McCreary v. I.R.S., Judge Hamilton dismissed the prisoner’s CARES Act payment suit with prejudice because the requested payments could no longer be issued.
Jody McCreary’s individual request for CARES Act economic impact payments was dismissed. The ruling also explains that incarcerated people covered by the earlier class action could not obtain duplicate individual equitable relief through a separate suit, and that the CARES Act payment deadline had passed.
What happened
In McCreary v. I.R.S., Jody McCreary, a Texas state prisoner representing himself, sued the Internal Revenue Service over economic impact payments under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act. He said he had not received the payments and asked the court to require the agency to provide them.
The court said McCreary was already part of a class action concerning incarcerated people whose payments were withheld solely because of their incarceration, so he could not seek the same individual relief in a separate case. The earlier case did not decide whether each person was actually owed a payment, and the law’s December 31, 2020 deadline for issuing or allowing the payments had passed. The court therefore found that McCreary could not obtain the relief he requested.
The court dismissed the complaint without leave to amend and dismissed the action with prejudice. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton ordered the clerk to close the case.
The detailed version
- McCreary v. I.R.S. · No. 4:21-cv-04797
- Phyllis Hamilton
- July 13, 2021
Background
Jody McCreary, identified as a state prisoner in Texas, filed a civil action against the Internal Revenue Service while representing himself. The court had allowed him to proceed without paying the filing fee. He sought court intervention to obtain economic impact payments under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, commonly called the CARES Act. McCreary stated that he had not received the payments.
Screening standard
Because McCreary was a prisoner suing a governmental entity, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. This screening process requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from a defendant protected from that type of relief. The court also applied the rule requiring a complaint to provide enough factual information to make a requested remedy plausible.
Reasons for dismissal
The court relied on an earlier class action involving economic impact payments for incarcerated people. That class action declared that the CARES Act did not allow the government to withhold payments from class members solely because they were or had been incarcerated, and it set aside the government’s contrary policy. But the earlier court expressly did not decide whether any particular person was owed a payment or the amount of any payment; the Internal Revenue Service was responsible for making those individual determinations.
The court found that McCreary was a member of that class. To the extent he claimed that his payment had been denied solely because of his incarceration, the court said he was not entitled to separate individual relief because his request duplicated the existing class action. To the extent he asked the court to require payment under the earlier class action or the CARES Act, the court said the earlier decision did not establish that he personally was owed a payment. The court also concluded that the CARES Act’s December 31, 2020 deadline for payments had passed and that no more funds could be issued under that Act.
Disposition
The court concluded that McCreary failed to state a claim for relief. It dismissed the complaint without leave to amend because it found that amendment could not cure the identified problems. The court’s conclusion states: “The action is DISMISSED with prejudice.” The clerk was directed to close the case.
Judge
The order was signed by United States District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.