Franklin

Background

Anthony Franklin, a Texas state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil action against the Internal Revenue Service and others. He had permission to proceed without paying the filing fee. Franklin sought court intervention to obtain economic-impact payments under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, commonly called the CARES Act.

Franklin alleged that he received two economic-impact payments, but the IRS garnished the funds to pay some of his debts. He also alleged that a third payment was sent but returned to the IRS by his prison. He received a letter stating that the check would be sent again, but he had not received it.

Screening standard

Because Franklin was a prisoner suing a governmental entity, the court conducted the required preliminary screening 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 an immune defendant. The court also applied the rule that a complaint must contain enough factual information to make a requested legal remedy plausible, while construing a self-represented plaintiff’s allegations liberally.

Economic-impact payments

The court reviewed the earlier related class action concerning incarcerated people and CARES Act payments. That case held that the law did not allow the defendants to withhold payments solely because a person was or had been incarcerated. It also held that the IRS policy treating people incarcerated during 2020 as ineligible was unlawful and required the IRS to reconsider payments denied solely for that reason.

But the earlier court expressly did not decide whether individual class members were actually owed payments or how much they were owed. Those individual decisions were left to the IRS. The court also noted that the CARES Act stated that no payment could be made or allowed after December 31, 2020. Because that deadline had passed, the court concluded that Franklin could not obtain the payments he sought in this action.

The court further stated that any challenge to deductions used to pay Franklin’s debts could be brought in the appropriate district in Texas. Any issue concerning the prison’s return of a payment also had to be pursued in Texas.

Disposition

The court concluded that Franklin failed to state a claim for relief. It ordered that the action be DISMISSED without leave to amend, meaning the court did not allow him to revise the complaint in this case. The clerk was ordered to close the case. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton entered the order on June 13, 2023.