Deaver v. Department of Treasury
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:21-cv-07603
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In Deaver v. Department of Treasury, Judge Hamilton dismissed Deaver’s request for CARES Act payments because class relief duplicated it and the deadline had passed.
Jason David Deaver’s individual action seeking economic impact payments was dismissed. The order also treated him as a member of the existing class addressing EIP denials based solely on incarceration, but it did not decide whether he personally was owed a payment.
What happened
In Deaver v. Department of Treasury, Jason David Deaver, a state prisoner representing himself, asked the court to require payment of his economic impact payments under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act.
The court said Deaver was already part of a class action addressing payments denied solely because someone was incarcerated, so he could not seek separate individual relief that duplicated that case. The court also said the Act’s December 31, 2020 deadline for issuing the payments had passed, so the requested payments could no longer be distributed under that law.
The court found that Deaver failed to state a claim, dismissed the complaint without allowing an amendment, and dismissed the action with prejudice. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton ordered the clerk to close the case.
The detailed version
- Deaver v. Department of Treasury · No. 4:21-cv-07603
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Oct. 27, 2021
Background
Jason David Deaver, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil action against the Department of Treasury. The court had allowed him to proceed without paying the filing fee. Deaver alleged that he had not received his economic impact payments, or EIPs, under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, commonly called the CARES Act. He asked the court to require the Internal Revenue Service to provide those payments.
Existing class action
The court discussed an earlier related class action concerning incarcerated people who were denied EIPs solely because of their incarceration. In that case, the court declared that the CARES Act did not allow the government to withhold EIPs from eligible class members solely for that reason and found the government’s policy unlawful. The earlier court did not decide whether any particular person was owed a payment or the amount of any payment; those decisions were left to the Internal Revenue Service.
Because Deaver was incarcerated and was part of that class, the court concluded that he could not obtain separate individual injunctive or equitable relief based on the same alleged denial. Class members had to pursue additional action through the class representatives and attorneys, including possible enforcement proceedings or intervention in the class case.
Reasoning
The court separately rejected Deaver’s request to compel payment under the CARES Act or the earlier class-action ruling. The earlier ruling prevented denial based solely on incarceration but did not establish that every incarcerated person was owed an EIP. The CARES Act also stated that no refund or credit could be made or allowed after December 31, 2020. Because that deadline had passed, the court held that Deaver could not obtain the relief he requested in this action.
Ruling
The court conducted the required screening of a prisoner’s complaint against a governmental entity and found that Deaver failed to state a claim for relief. It dismissed the complaint without leave to amend because the court determined that no amendment could cure the identified problems. The action was then DISMISSED with prejudice, and the clerk was ordered to close the case. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.