Soto v. Internal Revenue Service

Background

Apolinar F. Soto, a Texas state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil action against the Internal Revenue Service. The court had allowed him to proceed without paying the filing fee. Soto alleged that he had not received his economic impact payments (EIPs) and asked the court to compel the IRS to provide them under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act).

Screening standard

Because Soto was a prisoner seeking relief from a governmental entity, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That statute requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim for relief, or seek money from a defendant protected from that type of relief. The court also applied the rule that a complaint must contain enough factual matter to make a claim plausible, while construing a self-represented litigant’s filing liberally.

The earlier class action

The court discussed an earlier related class action concerning incarcerated people and EIPs. In that case, the court declared that the CARES Act did not allow the government to withhold EIPs solely because a person was or had been incarcerated. It also declared that the policy treating people incarcerated at any time in 2020 as ineligible was unlawful, and entered an injunction requiring the IRS to reconsider payments denied solely for that reason.

That earlier court expressly did not decide whether any particular person was owed a payment or the amount of any payment. Those individual eligibility decisions remained the IRS’s responsibility.

Court’s reasoning

The court found that Soto was a member of the earlier class. To the extent he claimed that his EIPs were denied because he was incarcerated, the court held that he was not entitled to separate individual injunctive or equitable relief duplicating the class action. The opinion stated that class members could pursue additional action through the class representative and attorney, including contempt proceedings or intervention in the class action.

The court also rejected Soto’s request to compel payment under the earlier class action or the CARES Act. The earlier case barred denial based solely on incarceration but did not establish that every incarcerated person was individually owed an EIP. In addition, the CARES Act stated that no refund or credit could be made or allowed after December 31, 2020. Because that deadline had passed, the court concluded that the requested relief could not be obtained in this case.

Disposition

The court concluded that Soto 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 court’s conclusion ordered that the action be dismissed with prejudice and directed the clerk to close the case. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order.