Webb v. Internal Revenue Service

Background

Dempsey Webb, 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. Webb sought court intervention to obtain economic-impact payments under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, commonly called the CARES Act. He alleged that he had not received his payments.

Screening standard

Because Webb was a prisoner suing a governmental entity, the court was required to screen 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 a defendant immune from such relief. The court also applied the rule requiring a complaint to provide enough factual matter to make the requested relief plausible, while construing a self-represented litigant’s pleadings liberally.

CARES Act payments and the earlier class action

The opinion explained that the CARES Act created a tax credit for eligible individuals and provided for advance payments of that credit. The Act required the Internal Revenue Service to issue or credit those payments as rapidly as possible, but stated that no refund or credit could be made or allowed under the relevant provision after December 31, 2020.

The opinion also described an earlier class action in which the court certified a class that included eligible United States citizens and legal permanent residents who were or had been incarcerated and otherwise met specified tax-related requirements. In that earlier proceeding, the court declared that the CARES Act did not authorize withholding advance payments solely because a class member was or had been incarcerated. It also found the Internal Revenue Service’s policy treating people incarcerated during 2020 as ineligible to be arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful, and ordered the agency to reconsider payments denied solely for that reason.

That earlier court expressly did not decide whether particular class members were owed payments or how much they were owed. Instead, the Internal Revenue Service was responsible for making individual eligibility determinations.

Court’s analysis

The court found that Webb was incarcerated and part of the earlier class. To the extent he claimed that his payment was denied because of his incarceration, the court held that he was not entitled to separate individual injunctive or equitable relief because his claim duplicated the existing class action. The court stated that class members must pursue additional action through the class representatives and attorneys, including by seeking further proceedings in the class action or intervening there.

To the extent Webb sought an order requiring the Internal Revenue Service to provide payments under the earlier class action or the CARES Act, the court held that he was not entitled to that relief. The earlier class action had not established that every incarcerated individual was owed a payment, and the statutory deadline for issuing or allowing the payments had passed. The court therefore concluded that Webb could not obtain the relief requested in this case.

Disposition

The court found that Webb failed to state a claim for relief. It dismissed the complaint without leave to amend because it determined that no amendment could cure the deficiencies. The court’s conclusion ordered that the action be dismissed with prejudice and directed the clerk to close the case.