Jones v. Internal Revenue Service

Background

Virgil L. Jones, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, sued the Internal Revenue Service. He had permission to proceed without paying the filing fee. Jones sought an order requiring the IRS to provide economic impact payments under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, commonly called the CARES Act. He stated that he had not received his payments.

Screening standard

Because Jones was a prisoner suing a governmental entity, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That law requires the court to identify claims that can proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, 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 the requested relief plausible.

Prior class action

The court discussed an earlier related class action concerning economic impact payments for incarcerated people. In that case, the court declared that 26 U.S.C. § 6428 did not allow the defendants to withhold advance refunds or credits from class members solely because they were or had been incarcerated. It also declared that the IRS policy treating people incarcerated at any time in 2020 as ineligible was arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful, and entered a permanent injunction requiring reconsideration of payments denied solely for that reason.

The earlier court expressly did not decide whether particular people were actually owed payments or the amount of any payment. Those individual determinations were left to the IRS.

Court’s reasoning

The court found that Jones was incarcerated and part of the earlier class. To the extent he claimed that the IRS denied his payment solely because he was incarcerated, the court said he was not entitled to separate individual injunctive or equitable relief because his requested relief duplicated the existing class action. The court stated that class members must pursue additional action through the class representatives and attorneys, including contempt proceedings or intervention in the class action.

The court also rejected Jones’s request for an order requiring the IRS to provide payments under the earlier class action or the CARES Act. The earlier case established only that incarceration alone could not justify denial; it did not establish that every incarcerated person was owed a payment. In addition, the CARES Act provided that no refund or credit could be made or allowed after December 31, 2020. Because that deadline had passed, the court concluded that Jones could not obtain the relief he requested.

Disposition

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