McCoy v. IRS
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:23-cv-01750
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In McCoy v. IRS, Judge Newman transferred federal prisoners’ contempt filing to the Northern District of California because it appeared intended for that district.
Hickory McCoy and the other plaintiffs’ case was transferred from the Eastern District of California to the Northern District of California; the order also concerned the Internal Revenue Service and the other named defendants.
What happened
In McCoy v. IRS, Hickory McCoy and other federal prisoners filed a motion asking the court to hold the Internal Revenue Service and others in contempt. They said an earlier case concerned economic payments for incarcerated citizens and asked for payments they believed were owed.
The court found that the filing was directed to the Northern District of California, referred to a case pending there, and did not concern a pending action in the Eastern District of California. It therefore ordered the case transferred to the Northern District of California in the interest of justice.
Judge Kendall J. Newman issued the transfer order on April 11, 2023. The order did not decide whether the plaintiffs were entitled to the payments or whether the defendants were in contempt.
The detailed version
- McCoy v. IRS · No. 4:23-cv-01750
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Apr. 11, 2023
Background
Plaintiffs, identified as federal prisoners proceeding without lawyers, mailed the court a document titled “Motion for Contempt of Court” on April 3, 2023. They also sought permission to proceed without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
The filing was addressed to the Northern District of California and referred to an earlier class action there. Plaintiffs claimed that the earlier case determined that the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service could not deny economic-impact payments to incarcerated but otherwise qualifying United States citizens. They asked the court to find the defendants in contempt for failing to make payments allegedly owed to qualifying plaintiffs.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that, in the interest of justice, a federal court may transfer a case filed in the wrong district to the proper district under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). The court concluded that the plaintiffs appeared to be seeking relief in the Northern District of California, possibly in connection with the earlier class action there.
The court also noted that neither plaintiff was housed in the Eastern District of California and that neither had a pending action in that district in which contempt relief was available. It determined that the matter had been improperly opened as a civil-rights action in the Eastern District of California.
Disposition
The court ordered the matter transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in the interest of justice. The order did not rule on the plaintiffs’ request for economic-impact payments, their contempt allegations, or their request to proceed without paying the filing fee.
Judge Kendall J. Newman signed the order as a United States magistrate judge.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.