BOSTON v. (INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE) ADMINISTRATION
2:22-cv-00489
| W.D. Pa. | Jun 8, 2022Background
- Plaintiff Benjamin Boston, a pro se inmate in DeKalb County Jail (GA), filed a complaint in the Western District of Pennsylvania and moved for IFP; IFP was granted.
- Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly issued a Report and Recommendation sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) recommending dismissal as frivolous/failure to state a claim.
- Boston filed objections styled as "Writs of Error Coram Nobis/Coram Vobis," raising three principal arguments: forum selection/venue, a request for mandamus to compel agencies leading to an arrest, and that GDOL/Unemployment Insurance and SNAP Benefits are federal agencies because they receive federal grants.
- The Court construed the filing as timely objections under the prisoner mailbox rule and reviewed the R&R de novo.
- The Court overruled the objections, adopted the R&R, dismissed the complaint under § 1915(e)(2)(B), denied leave to amend as futile, and closed the case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Venue proper in W.D. Pa | Boston contends the Georgia judge is biased, so venue in this district is appropriate | Venue is not proper in this district under § 1391(e) | Venue improper; objections overruled; case dismissed |
| Mandamus to compel investigation/arrest | Boston seeks an order compelling agencies to do their jobs, resulting in arrest | Mandamus unavailable because defendants owe no clear nondiscretionary duty to investigate or prosecute | Mandamus relief inappropriate; claim dismissed |
| State agencies = federal agencies due to federal grants | GDOL and SNAP receive federal grants and thus are federal agencies for § 1361 mandamus | Receipt of federal funds alone does not make an entity a federal agency subject to mandamus | Receipt of federal funds insufficient; mandamus and venue still inappropriate |
| Motion for leave to amend | Boston seeks leave to amend the complaint | Amendment would be futile given legal defects | Motion to amend denied as futile |
Key Cases Cited
- Brobst v. Attorney General of United States, [citation="807 F. App'x 184"] (3d Cir. 2020) (mandamus unavailable where no clear nondiscretionary duty to investigate or prosecute)
- Jafree v. Barber, 689 F.2d 640 (7th Cir. 1982) (initiation of a criminal investigation by FBI is discretionary)
- Griffith v. Bell-Whitley Community Action Agency, 614 F.2d 1102 (6th Cir. 1980) (receipt of federal funds does not by itself make an entity a federal agency)
- Alston v. Parker, 363 F.3d 229 (3d Cir. 2004) (standard for denying leave to amend as futile)
- Ragbir v. United States, 950 F.3d 54 (3d Cir. 2020) (coram nobis/coram vobis relief eliminated in civil context by Rule 60)