McCoy v. IRS
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:23-cv-01750
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In McCoy v. IRS, Judge Hamilton revoked plaintiffs’ appeal fee-waiver status, finding their CARES Act payment claim had no arguable legal or factual basis.
Hickory McCoy and the other plaintiff, both federal prisoners proceeding without lawyers, were affected because the court revoked their permission to pursue their appeal without paying fees.
What happened
Hickory McCoy and another plaintiff, both federal prisoners proceeding without lawyers, sued the Internal Revenue Service over economic impact payments under the CARES Act. The district court had dismissed their case during an initial screening, and they appealed.
The plaintiffs sought payment-related relief and asked the court to hold the defendants in contempt. The court explained that an earlier case did not establish that incarcerated individuals were owed payments and that the CARES Act deadline for issuing payments had passed.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton ruled that the action had no arguable basis in fact or law and revoked the plaintiffs’ permission to pursue the appeal without paying fees. The clerk was asked to send the order to the Ninth Circuit.
The detailed version
- McCoy v. IRS · No. 4:23-cv-01750
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Aug. 3, 2023
Background
Hickory McCoy and another plaintiff, described as a California federal prisoner and a Florida federal prisoner, filed a civil action against the Internal Revenue Service. They were proceeding pro se, meaning without lawyers. The district court dismissed the action at screening. The plaintiffs appealed, and the Ninth Circuit returned the matter to the district court for the limited purpose of deciding whether their permission to proceed in forma pauperis should continue or whether the appeal was frivolous or taken in bad faith.
The plaintiffs sought the court’s intervention in obtaining economic impact payments under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, commonly called the CARES Act. They also sought to hold the defendants in contempt for failing to provide the payments.
Court’s reasoning
Under the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a party who cannot afford appellate fees may seek permission to proceed in forma pauperis. But a court may deny that status if it certifies that the appeal was not taken in good faith. The court explained that an appeal is frivolous when it has no arguable basis in fact or law.
The court noted that the earlier Scholl case was closed and had not decided whether individual incarcerated plaintiffs were owed economic impact payments. That case held that payments could not be denied solely because a person was incarcerated, but left individual payment determinations to the Internal Revenue Service. The court also stated that the CARES Act required the payments to be made or allowed by December 31, 2020, and that no more funds could be issued under the Act after that deadline. Because the plaintiffs had not shown that the defendants should be held in contempt, the court found that the action had no arguable basis in fact or law.
Disposition
The court revoked the plaintiffs’ in forma pauperis status. It did not state in this order that the Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal. The clerk was requested to forward the order to the Ninth Circuit in case number 23-1488.
Effect
The order withdrew the plaintiffs’ permission to pursue the appeal without paying applicable fees. The opinion does not state what further action the Ninth Circuit took.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.