ARUANNO v. I.R.S.

D. New Jersey

ARUANNO v. I.R.S.

DecidedFebruary 9, 2023

Docket2:23-cv-00786

StatusUnknown

This text of ARUANNO v. I.R.S. (ARUANNO v. I.R.S.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

ARUANNO v. I.R.S., (D.N.J. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JOSEPH ARUANNO, Case No. 22-cv-08915-PJH

8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF TRANSFER v. 9 Re: Dkt. No. 2 10 I.R.S., Defendant. 11

12 13 Plaintiff, a New Jersey state prisoner, proceeds with a pro se civil action against a 14 governmental entity. Plaintiff is incarcerated in the District of New Jersey and raises a 15 claim against defendants in that district. He states that the Internal Revenue Service sent 16 to him at his prison his economic impact payment (“EIP”) pursuant to the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (The “CARES Act”), Pub. L. No. 116-136, 134 17 Stat. 281 (2020). He contends that the prison officials in New Jersey are withholding the 18 funds from him and other prisoners. For relief, plaintiff seeks money damages and for his 19 EIPs to be provided. 20 In Scholl v. Mnuchin, 494 F. Supp. 3d 661 (N.D. Cal. 2020) this court found that 21 the Department of Treasury and Internal Revenue Service could not withhold advance 22 refunds or credits to individuals solely because they were incarcerated. Id. at 692. To 23 the extent plaintiff requests to proceed with his claim in this court and the Scholl case, 24 any such request is denied. Plaintiff’s claim involves entirely different defendants located 25 in the District of New Jersey. Plaintiff’s claim involves interference by prison officials in 26 withholding his EIPs, not the issuance of funds by the Scholl defendants and the CARES 27 Act. 1 Venue, therefore, properly lies in that district and not in this one. See 28 U.S.C. 2 § 1391(b). This case is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the 3 District of New Jersey. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). The pending motion (Docket No. 2) is 4 denied as moot. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: February 9, 2023 7 8 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 9 United States District Judge

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JOSEPH ARUANNO, Case No. 22-cv-08915-PJH

8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF TRANSFER v. 9 Re: Dkt. No. 2 10 I.R.S., Defendant. 11

12 13 Plaintiff, a New Jersey state prisoner, proceeds with a pro se civil action against a 14 governmental entity. Plaintiff is incarcerated in the District of New Jersey and raises a 15 claim against defendants in that district. He states that the Internal Revenue Service sent 16 to him at his prison his economic impact payment (“EIP”) pursuant to the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (The “CARES Act”), Pub. L. No. 116-136, 134 17 Stat. 281 (2020). He contends that the prison officials in New Jersey are withholding the 18 funds from him and other prisoners. For relief, plaintiff seeks money damages and for his 19 EIPs to be provided. 20 In Scholl v. Mnuchin, 494 F. Supp. 3d 661 (N.D. Cal. 2020) this court found that 21 the Department of Treasury and Internal Revenue Service could not withhold advance 22 refunds or credits to individuals solely because they were incarcerated. Id. at 692. To 23 the extent plaintiff requests to proceed with his claim in this court and the Scholl case, 24 any such request is denied. Plaintiff’s claim involves entirely different defendants located 25 in the District of New Jersey. Plaintiff’s claim involves interference by prison officials in 26 withholding his EIPs, not the issuance of funds by the Scholl defendants and the CARES 27 Act. 1 Venue, therefore, properly lies in that district and not in this one. See 28 U.S.C. 2 § 1391(b). This case is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the 3 District of New Jersey. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). The pending motion (Docket No. 2) is 4 denied as moot. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: February 9, 2023 7 8 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 9 United States District Judge

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

ARUANNO v. I.R.S., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aruanno-v-irs-njd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack