A federal judge has shot down a man’s attempt to reopen his lawsuit against the U.S. government over missing COVID-19 stimulus payments, ruling that the request was filed too late and failed to follow court rules.
Background of the Case
Senior Judge Loren A. Smith of the United States Court of Federal Claims issued the order on June 8, 2026, denying a motion for reconsideration filed by Travis Ray Thompson. Thompson, who represented himself without an attorney, originally sued the government in April 2024. He sought to recover a series of Economic Impact Payments, commonly known as stimulus checks, which Congress authorized during the pandemic.
However, the Internal Revenue Service noted that Thompson repeatedly submitted an incorrect identification number. Court records show his filings included unsigned Form 1040 and Form 1040X tax returns containing what he believed was his Social Security number.
To help him fix these issues, Judge Smith paused the case from June 2025 to December 2025. The court specifically ordered Thompson to amend his 2020 and 2021 tax returns, find his correct Social Security number, and sign the documents. Although the court granted Thompson a 30-day extension, he did not meet the December 31, 2025 deadline.
Consequently, the court dismissed the case on March 2, 2026, due to a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court did not have the legal authority to hear the case under those conditions.
Denial of the Motion
Thompson filed a motion to reopen the case on May 26, 2026, arguing that the court abused its discretion by “not taking as true [his] original Form 1040s had been signed.” He also stated that after working with the Social Security Administration, he finally received his correct Social Security number on April 27, 2026.
Judge Smith rejected the argument and pointed out multiple procedural errors in Thompson’s request. First, Thompson filed under a legal subsection that “only applies when the government moves for reconsideration.” Second, requests under the correct subsections must be filed within 28 days of a final judgment. Thompson filed his motion more than two months after his case was dismissed, making it legally untimely.
Furthermore, the judge ruled that the newly obtained Social Security number did not qualify as new evidence that would justify reopening the case. Smith noted that the number could have been obtained earlier with reasonable diligence, and added that “the leeway afforded to pro se litigants does not extend to jurisdictional deficiencies.”
Despite the denial, the ruling leaves the door open for Thompson to try again. Because the court originally dismissed the case “without prejudice,” the dismissal is not permanent.
“Since the Court dismissed this case without prejudice, plaintiff may re-file his claim with his Social Security number and signed tax returns for the Court to properly hear his case,” Judge Smith wrote in the order, adding that the court takes no position on the actual merits of any future claim Thompson might bring.
Original reporting: Tampa Free Press — read the source article.
