The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
David R. Puckett, ) CASE NO. 1:21 CV 425
)
Plaintiff, ) JUDGE PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN
)
v. )
) Memorandum of Opinion and Order
U.S. Dept. of Treasury Internal Revenue )
Service, )
)
Defendants. )
INTRODUCTION
Pro se Plaintiff David R. Puckett filed this action against the United States Department
of Treasury Internal Revenue Service seeking the first Economic Impact Payment (“EIP”), or
stimulus check, to which he claims he is entitled. He indicates he received the second check
issued, but not the first. He does not identify the legal claim or claims he intends to assert in
this action. He seeks monetary damages in the amount of $ 1,200.00, which he states is the
amount of the first EIP check.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff is a prisoner in the Richland Correctional Institution. He alleges he completed a
form 1040 United States Income Tax Return on October 14, 2020, to be eligible to receive the
economic impact payments, also known as stimulus checks, that the government was providing
to qualified taxpayers. He does not indicate for which year’s taxes he filed a return. He claims
he did not receive a check from the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) by the December 31, 2020
deadline. His attorney-in-fact, using a power of attorney signed by Plaintiff, made inquiries on
his behalf with the IRS through the agency’s website. She reported to Plaintiff that not enough
information had been provided. He alleges she was not advised how to remedy that situation.
He indicates he eventually received a check for $ 600.00, which he claims is the second check
the government issued. He contends he is entitled to another $1200.00 for the first check the
government issued. He does not indicate the cause of action he is asserting to support this claim
for relief.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364,
365 (1982) (per curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), the Court is required to
dismiss an in forma pauperis action under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e) if it fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted, or if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams,
490 U.S. 319 (1989); Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196 (6th Cir. 1990); Sistrunk v. City of
Strongsville, 99 F.3d 194, 197 (6th Cir. 1996). A claim lacks an arguable basis in law or fact
when it is premised on an indisputably meritless legal theory or when the factual contentions are
clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327.
A cause of action fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted when it lacks
“plausibility in the Complaint.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 564 (2007). A
pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009). The factual allegations in
the pleading must be sufficient to raise the right to relief above the speculative level on the
-2-
assumption that all the allegations in the Complaint are true. Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. at 555.
The Plaintiff is not required to include detailed factual allegations, but must provide more than
“an unadorned, the-Defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A
pleading that offers legal conclusions or a simple recitation of the elements of a cause of action
will not meet this pleading standard. Id. In reviewing a Complaint, the Court must construe the
pleading in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff. Bibbo v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 151
F.3d 559, 561 (6th Cir.1998).
DISCUSSION
The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act of 2020 (the “CARES Act” or
the “Act”) was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Trump on March 27, 2020,
to provide economic relief to certain individuals who reside in the United States during the
COVID-19 pandemic. The Act was designed, in part, to provide direct economic assistance
payments, the amount of which is based on the tax filing status of each eligible individual and
the number of qualifying children they have, if any. The Act defines an “eligible individual” as
“any individual other than any nonresident alien individual,” any individual who cannot be
claimed as a deduction on another taxpayer's income tax return, and “an estate or trust.” See 26
U.S.C. § 6428(d).
The portion of the CARES Act relevant to this litigation amended the Internal Revenue
Code to provide for Economic Impact Payments (“EIP”) to be paid directly to eligible
individuals through a “tax credit.” The amount of the credit allocated to eligible individuals is
limited based on an eligible individual's adjusted gross income (“AGI”), with phase-outs
beginning at $75,000 for individual filers and $150,000 for joint filers. 26 U.S.C. § 6428(c).
-3-
The credit was to be paid in 2021 based on an individual’s 2020 income tax return, see 26
U.S.C. § 6428(a), or as an “advance refund” to be paid on or before December 31, 2020, based
on an individual’s 2019 income tax return. See 26 U.S.C. § 6428(f). If an eligible individual
had not filed a 2019 tax return, that individual would still be eligible to receive an advance
refund based on that person’s 2018 tax return. 26 U.S.C. § 6428(f)(5)(A). If an individual had
not filed either a 2019 or a 2018 tax return, the IRS could use information provided in Form
SSA-1099 or Form RRB-1099, with respect to that individual receiving social security benefits.
26 U.S.C. § 6428(f)(5)(B). The IRS indicated that it would calculate and automatically issue an
EIP to eligible individuals.
Persons who did not file a tax return for tax years 2018 or 2019 (“non-filers”) could go
to a web-based portal the IRS set up for non-filers to provide their information in order to
receive the EIP advance refund. Individuals who use the non-filer online portal had until
October 15, 2020, to register in order to receive the EIP by the December 31, 2020 deadline
imposed by the CARES Act. Eligible individuals who did not receive an advance refund could
claim their EIP tax rebates by filing a 2020 tax return in 2021.1
Plaintiff does not indicate a the legal cause of action he intends to pursue which allows
him to sue the IRS to compel it to issue him an EIP payment. The United States, as a sovereign,
1
The IRS initially took the position that incarcerated individuals were ineligible for the
EIP. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California certified a class of
incarcerated persons and determined that withholding EIP checks from them was arbitrary and
capricious. Scholl v. Mnuchin, No. 20-cv-5309 PJH, ––– F.3d ––––, 2020 WL 5702129 (N.D.
Cal. Sept. 24, 2020) (Scholl I) The court ordered the IRS to reexamine those returns for
individual eligibility and credit amount paid. The court declined to address individual claims
stating it was the IRS’s duty, and not that of the court, to determine individual eligibility and
credit amounts.
-4-
cannot be sued without its prior consent, and the terms of its consent define the Court’s subject
matter jurisdiction. McGinness v. U.S., 90 F.3d 143, 145 (6th Cir. 1996). A waiver of
sovereign immunity must be strictly construed, unequivocally expressed, and cannot be implied.
U.S. v. King, 395 U.S. 1,4 (1969); Soriano v. U.S., 352 U.S. 270, 276 (1957). Plaintiff,
therefore, must point to some statute waiving sovereign immunity for the type of suit he is
attempting to bring. He has not pointed to any such statute nor has he referred the Court to any
statutory or case law authority which would allow him to maintain an action against the United
States under the CARES Act for receipt of specific non-disbursed funds. The CARES Act did
not establish a private right of action to dispute the IRS’s determination of an individual’s
eligibility for the EIP. Phelps v. Mnuchin, No. 3:21-CV-327-JD-MGG, 2021 WL 2138506, at
*3-4 (N.D. Ind. May 26, 2021). See also Comcast Corp. v. Nat. Ass’n of African Am.-Owned
Media, --- U.S. ----, ----, 140 S. Ct. 1009, 1015 (2020) (“[W]e have come to appreciate that, like
substantive federal law itself, private rights of action to enforce federal law must be created by
Congress and raising up causes of action where a statute has not created them may be a proper
function for common-law courts, but not for federal tribunals.”) (quoting Alexander v. Sandoval,
532 U.S. 275, 286-87 (2001)) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). Plaintiff has not
demonstrated a waiver of the United States’ sovereign immunity.
Finally, even if there were a private cause of action under the CARES Act, funds cannot
now be distributed for the EIP. As noted above, the CARES Act imposed a deadline of
December 31, 2020, for EIPs to be made or allowed. That deadline has passed, and no more
funds may be issued. After the deadline, eligible individuals can get the credit through their
2020 tax return. Plaintiff cannot obtain the relief he seeks in this case.
-5-
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, this action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e). The Court
certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be
taken in good faith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Patricia A. Gaughan
PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN
United States District Court
Chief Judge
Dated: 6/22/21
-6-