Padilla v. Internal Revenue Service

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ISMAEL H. PADILLA, Case No. 24-cv-02982-PJH

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 9 v. RECONSIDERATION

10 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 10 Defendants. 11

12 13 Plaintiff, a Texas state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil action against a 14 governmental entity. The court denied the case at screening and plaintiff has filed a 15 motion for reconsideration that the court construes as a motion for relief from a judgment 16 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). 17 Rule 60(b) lists six grounds for relief from a judgment. Such a motion must be 18 made within a “reasonable time,” and as to grounds for relief (1) - (3), no later than one 19 year after the judgment was entered. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Rule 60(b) provides for 20 reconsideration where one or more of the following is shown: (1) mistake, inadvertence, 21 surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence 22 could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial; (3) fraud by the adverse 23 party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied; (6) any other reason 24 justifying relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); School Dist. 1J v. ACandS Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 25 (9th Cir.1993). Rule 60(b) provides a mechanism for parties to seek relief from a 26 judgment when “it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective 27 application,” or when there is any other reason justifying relief from judgment. Jeff D. v. 1 In this case, plaintiff sought court intervention in obtaining his economic impact 2 payment (“EIP”) pursuant to the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (The 3 “CARES Act”), Pub. L. No. 116-136, 134 Stat. 281 (2020) and Scholl v. Mnuchin, 494 F. 4 Supp. 3d 661 (N.D. Cal. 2020). Plaintiff was advised that he was not entitled to relief to 5 the extent he sought the court to compel the IRS to provide his EIP. The court in Scholl 6 found that the EIP could not be denied only because an individual was incarcerated. 7 However, the court was clear that it took no position on whether individual incarcerated 8 plaintiffs were owed the EIP, which is the relief sought in this case. That responsibility fell 9 to the IRS to make an individual determination. More importantly, funds cannot now be 10 distributed pursuant to the CARES Act. The CARES Act imposed a deadline of 11 December 31, 2020, for EIPs to be made or allowed. That deadline has passed, and no 12 more funds may be issued. 13 In this motion, plaintiff presents the same arguments from his complaint and fails 14 to put forth any newly discovered evidence or demonstrate any other grounds for relief. 15 Plaintiff’s motion (Docket No. 10) is DENIED. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 Dated: August 14, 2024 18 19 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 20 United States District Judge

21 22 23 24 25 26 27