Frazier v. San Francisco IRS
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:22-cv-08916
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
Frazier v. San Francisco IRS: Judge Hamilton dismissed the payment claim without leave to amend and denied appointment of counsel.
Kelvin Frazier’s individual action was dismissed, so he did not obtain an order requiring payment of his economic-impact payments in this case. The order also directed him to raise allegations about prison-official deductions in the appropriate Florida federal district.
What happened
In Kelvin Frazier v. San Francisco IRS, Kelvin Frazier, a Florida state prisoner without a lawyer, sought economic-impact payments under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act. He had permission to proceed without paying filing fees.
The court said Frazier was already part of a class action addressing payments denied solely because people were incarcerated, so he could not obtain separate relief on that basis. It also said the payment deadline had passed and the court could not order new payments under the Act. Claims about prison officials taking funds had to be filed in the appropriate Florida federal district.
The court dismissed the action without leave to amend and denied Frazier’s motion to appoint counsel. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton issued the order.
The detailed version
- Frazier v. San Francisco IRS · No. 4:22-cv-08916
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Feb. 14, 2023
Background
Kelvin Frazier, a Florida state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil action against San Francisco IRS. The court had allowed him to proceed without paying the filing fee. Frazier sought court intervention to obtain economic-impact payments under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, commonly called the CARES Act.
Screening standard
Because Frazier was a prisoner suing a governmental entity, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That law requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a legally sufficient claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also applied the requirement that a complaint provide enough factual matter to make a claim plausible, while construing a self-represented plaintiff’s allegations liberally.
Reasons for dismissal
The court relied on an earlier related class action concerning economic-impact payments for people who were or had been incarcerated. That case declared that the CARES Act did not allow the government to withhold payments solely because a person was incarcerated and found the government’s contrary policy unlawful. But that earlier ruling did not decide whether any particular person was owed a payment or how much.
The court concluded that Frazier was a member of that class and therefore could not obtain separate individual injunctive or equitable relief based on incarceration status. The court also rejected his request to compel payment under the earlier class-action ruling or the CARES Act. It explained that the Act required payments to be made or allowed by December 31, 2020, and that this deadline had passed. The court therefore found that Frazier could not obtain the relief requested in this action.
The court further stated that allegations concerning prison officials’ possible deductions for child support, court costs, back taxes, or other reasons had to be raised in an action filed in the appropriate federal district in Florida where he was incarcerated.
Disposition
The court dismissed the action without leave to amend because it found that no amendment could cure the identified deficiencies. The clerk was directed to close the case. Because the action was dismissed, the court denied the motion to appoint counsel. 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.