Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00960/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00960-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 870
Nature of Suit: Tax Suits
Cause of Action: 26:7401 IRS: Tax Liability

---

1 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 The United States brings this action against defendants to reduce to judgment federal tax 

18 assessments and foreclose federal tax liens. See generally Compl. The court scheduled this case 

19 on March 9, 2023. Hr’g Mins., ECF No. 25. At the scheduling conference, defendant Bill 

20 Brooke explained his difficulty obtaining counsel, so the court referred the matter to Sujean Park 

21 to assist him with locating counsel if possible. 

22 Less than a month later, Mr. Brooke filed a document on the docket titled “Motion to 

23 Appoint Counsel,” which includes a brief handwritten note stating Mr. Brooke cannot find a 

24 lawyer, requests help and has not heard from this court’s courtroom deputy. See ECF No. 27 at 6. 

25 The document also includes a letter from Mr. Brooke’s nephew to the government that includes 

26 “observations” about the case. See id. at 3–4. 

27 After Mr. Brooke’s responsive pleading deadline passed, see Hr’g Mins., the government 

28 responded to Mr. Brooke’s request by stating it does not object to the court briefly extending case 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Bill H. Brooke, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:22-cv-00960-KJM-KJN 

ORDER 

Case 2:22-cv-00960-DC-CSK Document 32 Filed 04/25/23 Page 1 of 2
2 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

deadlines to give Mr. Brooke additional time to retain counsel, but argues Mr. Brooke has not met 

the standard for appointed counsel under the in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), 

see Resp. at 1–2, ECF No. 28. The government also requested entry of default as to Mr. Brooke. 

Req. Entry Default, ECF No. 29, which is pending with the Clerk of Court. 

The court finds Mr. Brooke’s letter does not request appointment of counsel under

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). In the context of this case, Mr. Brooke’s letter follows up on the court’s 

prior referral to Sujean Park. In any case, as the government notes, see Resp. at 2–5, Mr. Brooke 

would not have met the in forma pauperis standard because, for example, he has made no

showing of financial indigence, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). However, the court understands 

Sujean Park located an attorney willing to speak with Mr. Brooke, who has spoken with 

Mr. Brooke’s nephew, but is not available to represent Mr. Brooke. The court extends 

Mr. Brooke’s responsive pleading deadline to May 12, 2023, and the initial disclosures 

deadline to May 26, 2023, to allow Mr. Brooke to respond and comply, and a final opportunity 

to retain counsel. The court denies his request for assistance as moot. 

The parties are reminded that if they would like to participate in a court settlement 

conference or be referred to the Voluntary Dispute Resolution Program at any time, then they 

17 should file that joint request in writing.

18 This order resolves ECF No. 27. 

19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

20 DATED: April 24, 2023. 

21 

Case 2:22-cv-00960-DC-CSK Document 32 Filed 04/25/23 Page 2 of 2