Davis v. Rettig

Background

D'Angelo Davis, identified as a West Virginia federal prisoner, proceeded without a lawyer against a governmental entity. He had permission to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court conducted the required initial screening of a prisoner’s complaint against a governmental entity under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

Davis sought court intervention to obtain economic impact payments under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, commonly called the CARES Act. The opinion explains that the Act created an advance tax refund for eligible individuals, but provided that no refund or credit could be made or allowed after December 31, 2020.

Prior class action

The court discussed an earlier related class action concerning incarcerated people and economic impact payments. That class included qualifying United States citizens and lawful permanent residents who were or had been incarcerated, among other requirements. The earlier court declared that the CARES Act did not authorize withholding payments solely because a person was or had been incarcerated, and that the policy treating people incarcerated during 2020 as ineligible was arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful. The earlier court also entered a permanent injunction requiring reconsideration of payments denied solely for that reason.

The earlier court expressly took no position on whether any particular plaintiff or class member was actually owed a payment or on the amount of any payment. It left those individual eligibility determinations to the IRS.

Court’s analysis

The court found that Davis was incarcerated and part of the earlier class. To the extent he challenged denial of his payment because of incarceration, the court concluded that he was not entitled to separate individual injunctive or equitable relief because that request duplicated the existing class action. The court said class members could pursue additional equitable or declaratory relief through the class representatives and attorneys, including through contempt proceedings or intervention in the class action.

The court separately rejected Davis’s request to compel the IRS to provide his individual payments under the earlier class action or the CARES Act. The earlier ruling barred denial based solely on incarceration but did not decide whether Davis personally met all eligibility requirements. In addition, the December 31, 2020 deadline for making or allowing the payments had passed, so the court concluded that the requested relief could not be obtained in this case.

Disposition

The court held that Davis failed to state a claim for relief and dismissed the complaint without leave to amend because it was clear that amendment could not cure the deficiencies. The action was dismissed without leave to amend, and the clerk was directed to close the case. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order.