Mascetta v. United States Department of Treasury

Background

Paul and Angela Mascetta, proceeding without lawyers, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 seeking a writ of error coram nobis, a limited post-conviction remedy generally used by people no longer in custody who seek to challenge a criminal conviction. The filing concerned Paul Mascetta’s closed criminal case, in which he had been convicted of conspiracy to commit securities fraud and ordered to pay restitution.

The petition challenged the respondents’ decision to apply the Mascettas’ 2019 joint tax refund to outstanding restitution payments. The petitioners claimed that the respondents lacked authority to do so because a 20-year limitation period for collecting restitution had expired. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief: a finding that the respondents lacked authority to withhold the refund, an order requiring release of the refund, and an order barring future collection attempts.

Why the Court Treated the Filing as a Civil Case

The court concluded that the submission should be treated as a new civil action rather than a motion in Paul Mascetta’s criminal case. First, both Paul and Angela Mascetta filed the matter, but the court stated that only Paul could challenge the judgment of conviction in his criminal case. Second, both petitioners sought declaratory and injunctive relief. Third, the respondents—the United States Department of the Treasury, the Internal Revenue Service, and the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York—were not parties to the criminal action; the United States was the party prosecuted in that case, and the United States Attorney’s Office represented it. Finally, the petitioners did not challenge the validity of the restitution order. Instead, they challenged the withholding of their tax refund and continued efforts to enforce the restitution order.

The court noted that Paul Mascetta could seek relief in the criminal case by filing a motion captioned for that case, but the court expressed no view on whether such a motion would have merit.

Order

Because the filing was treated as a new civil action, the court directed each petitioner either to pay $400 in fees—$350 for filing and $50 for administration—or to submit a separate signed application to proceed without prepaying fees. The court directed the petitioners to submit the applications within 30 days and instructed that each application identify docket number 20-CV-4810 (LLS). If the applications were granted, the petitioners could proceed without paying the fees in advance.

The Clerk of Court was directed to mail the order to the petitioners and record service on the docket. No summons was to issue at that time. The court stated that, if the petitioners complied, the case would be processed under the Clerk’s Office procedures; if they failed to comply within the allowed period, the action would be dismissed. The order did not resolve the legality of withholding the tax refund, the asserted 20-year limitation period, or the underlying restitution collection.