Mascetta v. United States Department of Treasury

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedAugust 5, 2020
Docket1:20-cv-04810
StatusUnknown

This text of Mascetta v. United States Department of Treasury (Mascetta v. United States Department of Treasury) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Mascetta v. United States Department of Treasury, (S.D.N.Y. 2020).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK PAUL MASCETTAand ANGELA MASCETTA, Petitioners, -against- 20-CV-4810(LLS) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ORDER DIRECTING PAYMENT OF FEE TREASURY; INTERNAL REVENUE OR IFP APPLICATION SERVICE(IRS); andUNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, Respondents. LOUIS L. STANTON, United States District Judge: Petitioners Paul and Angela Mascetta, who are husband and wife, bring this petition for a writ of error coram nobis under 28 U.S.C. § 1651pro se, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief in Mr. Mascetta’s closed criminal case in this Court. See United States v. Mascetta, No. 99- CV-0698 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 12, 1999). Mr. Mascetta was convicted of conspiracy to commit security fraud,and as part of his sentence, he was ordered to pay restitution. See id.(ECF No. 7.) Petitioners now challenge Respondents’ decision to apply Petitioners’ 2019 joint tax refundto outstanding restitution payments, claiming that Respondents are without jurisdiction to do so because a twenty-year limitation period to collect restitution payments has expired. Petitioners name as Respondents the United States Department of the Treasury, the Internal Revenue Service, and the United States Attorney’s Officefor the Southern District of New York. “Coram nobis is essentially a remedy of last resort for petitioners who are no longer in custody pursuant to a criminal conviction”but wish to challenge their conviction.Fleming v. United States, 146 F.3d 88, 89–90 (2d Cir. 1998).Although Petitioners style their submission as a criminal motionto be filed in Mr. Mascetta’s criminal case,for several distinct reasons, the Court concludes that they seek to bring a new civil action. First, Mr. Mascetta and his wife filed this case, but only Mr. Mascetta may challenge his judgment of convictionin his criminal case. Second, bothPetitioners seek declaratory and injunctiverelief, that is, an order:

(1) finding that Respondents were without jurisdiction to withhold their 2019 tax refund, (2) directing Respondents to release the tax refund,and (3) barring Respondents fromfuture collection attempts. (SeeECF No. 1.) Third, Petitioners name respondents that were not parties to the criminal action. The parties to the criminal case were Mr. Mascetta and the United States; the USAO only represented the United States in its prosecution of Mr. Mascetta. Finally,Petitioners do not challenge the validity of the order of restitution. Rather, Petitioners challenge Respondents’ decision to withhold their tax refund and Respondents’ continued attempts to enforce the order of restitution.1

For these reasons, the Court concludes that Petitioners’ submission should be construed as a new civil action. As Petitioners have initiated a new civil action, they must either pay $400.00 in fees – a $350.00 filing fee plus a $50.00 administrative fee –or, to request authorization to proceed without prepayment of fees,each submit signed IFP applications.See 28

1 Mr. Mascetta is free to seek coram nobis relief in his criminal case by filing a motion captioned for the criminal case. The Court offers no opinion as to the merit of any such motion but notes that courts within this Circuit have held that a defendant may challenge an order of restitution in a petition for a writ of error coram nobis.See, e.g.,Carnesi v. United States, 933 F. Supp. 2d 388, 394 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (after noting that the law in this Circuit is uncertain as to whether coram nobis relief is available, finding that petition for a writ of error coram nobis is proper vehicle to challenge order of restitution).But as stated above, Mr. Mascetta does not challenge the validity of the order of restitution. U.S.C. §§ 1914, 1915. If Petitioners submit IFP applications, each application should be labeled with docket number 20-CV-4810 (LLS). If the Court grants the IFP applications, Petitioners will be permitted to proceed without prepayment of fees. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). CONCLUSION The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Petitioners and note service on the docket. The Court directs Petitioners to each submit the attached IFP applications, within 30 days of the date of this order. No summons shall issue at this time. If Petitioners comply with this order, the case shall be processed in accordance with the procedures of the Clerk’s Office. If Petitioners fail to comply with this order within the time allowed, the action will be dismissed. Tn light of the current global health crisis, parties proceeding pro se are encouraged to submit all filings by email to Temporary □□□ Se Filing@nysd.uscourts.gov. Pro se parties also are encouraged to consent to receive all court documents electronically. A consent to electronic service form is available on the Court’s website. Pro se parties who are unable to use email may submit documents by regular mail or in person at the drop box located at the U.S. Courthouses in Manhattan (500 Pearl Street) and White Plains (300 Quarropas Street). For more information, including instructions on this new email service for pro se parties, please visit the Court’s website at nysd.uscourts. gov. Dated: July 30, 2020 New York, New York Louis L. Stanton U.S.D.J.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

(full name of the plaintiff or petitioner applying (each person must submit a separate application)) CV ( ) ( ) -against- (Provide docket number, if available; if filing this with your complaint, you will not yet have a docket number.) (full name(s) of the defendant(s)/respondent(s)) APPLICATION TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS I am a plaintiff/petitioner in this case and declare that I am unable to pay the costs of these proceedings and I believe that I am entitled to the relief requested in this action. In support of this application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) (without prepaying fees or costs), I declare that the responses below are true:

1. Are you incarcerated? Yes No (If “No,” go to Question 2.) I am being held at: Do you receive any payment from this institution? Yes No Monthly amount: If I am a prisoner, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h), I have attached to this document a “Prisoner Authorization” directing the facility where I am incarcerated to deduct the filing fee from my account in installments and to send to the Court certified copies of my account statements for the past six months. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2), (b). I understand that this means that I will be required to pay the full filing fee.

2. Are you presently employed? Yes No If “yes,” my employer’s name and address are:

Gross monthly pay or wages:

If “no,” what was your last date of employment?

Gross monthly wages at the time:

3. In addition to your income stated above (which you should not repeat here), have you or anyone else living at the same residence as you received more than $200 in the past 12 months from any of the following sources? Check all that apply.

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

Related

Woodrow Fleming v. United States
146 F.3d 88 (Second Circuit, 1998)
Carnesi v. United States
933 F. Supp. 2d 388 (E.D. New York, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Mascetta v. United States Department of Treasury, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mascetta-v-united-states-department-of-treasury-nysd-2020.