Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02055/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02055-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 870
Nature of Suit: Tax Suits
Cause of Action: 26:7402 IRS: Petition to Enforce IRS Summons

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America, )

 )

Petitioner, ) No. CIV 06-2055 PHX RCB

 )

vs. ) O R D E R

 )

Lance C. Standifird, )

 )

 )

Respondent. ) )

Currently before the Court is Respondent's notice of appeal

(doc. # 24). Respondent seeks to appeal this Court's August 28,

2006 order (doc. # 23) denying his request for court appointed

counsel. Id. The Court construes this notice as a motion for

leave to appeal an interlocutory order.

Respondent bases his request for interlocutory appeal on the

collateral order doctrine. See Notice (doc. # 24). Under the

collateral order doctrine, "[o]rders that do not dispose of the

entire litigation are appealable as collateral orders if they 

[1] conclusively determine the disputed question, [2] resolve an

important issue completely separate from the merits of the action, 

Case 2:06-cv-02055-RCB Document 26 Filed 09/21/06 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 In the instant case, the Government's motion seeking

adjudication of Respondent in contempt for his refusal to comply with

an IRS tax inquiry is in the nature of civil contempt. The Supreme

Court has held that "[w]hile particular acts do not always readily

lend themselves to classification as civil or criminal contempts, a

contempt is considered civil when the punishment is wholly remedial,

serves only the purposes of the complainant, and is not intended as

a deterrent to offenses against the public." McCrone v. United

States, 307, U.S. 61, 64 (1939). Thus, a motion invoking judicial

assistance to obtain testimony in a tax inquiry is in the nature of

civil contempt, because the "[a]uthority of the court [is] sought to

buttress the procedure for collection of taxes and not in

'vindication of the public justice,' as in criminal cases." Id. at

64-65.

- 2 -

and [3] [are] effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final

judgment.” SEC v. Capital Consultants LLC, 453 F.3d 1166, 1171

(9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations and citations omitted). These

requirements are to be applied strictly, as only a "narrow class of

decisions" satisfies them. Id. (citing Digital Equip. Corp. v.

Desktop Direct, Inc., 511 U.S. 863, 867-68 (1994)).

This is an IRS summons enforcement action. Mot. (doc. # 1). 

On August 28, 2006, the Court held a hearing on the Government's

motion (doc. # 16) for order to show cause why Respondent should

not be held in contempt for failure to comply with the Court's

January 23, 2006 order (doc. # 13) granting the Government's

petition to enforce the IRS summons. Minute Entry (doc. # 23). At

that hearing, Respondent orally moved for court appointed counsel. 

Id. The Court denied that request at that time on the basis that

Respondent had not made any showing of indigent status that would

warrant such appointment. The Court also expressed its reservation

as to whether he was entitled to appointed counsel in the context

of civil contempt proceedings related to the enforcement of an IRS

summons.1 Id. (Tr. at 2:14:32 - 2:17:33 p.m.).

Case 2:06-cv-02055-RCB Document 26 Filed 09/21/06 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

Inasmuch as the Court's denial of Respondent's request for

counsel was based on Respondent's failure at that time to provide

any documentation from which the Court could determine his ability

to provide for his own counsel, the August 28, 2006 order is not a

final decision conclusively determining the disputed question. See

Capital Consultants LLC, 453 F.3d at 1171. As such, the order is

not amenable to interlocutory appeal under the collateral order

doctrine. See id. ("Strict application of the requirements is

particularly important because, when a court identifies an order as

an appealable, collateral one, it determines the appealability of

all such orders.").

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Respondent's notice of appeal

(doc. # 24) is construed as a motion for leave to appeal an

interlocutory order, and so construed is DENIED.

DATED this 21st day of September, 2006.

Copies to counsel of record and Respondent pro se

Case 2:06-cv-02055-RCB Document 26 Filed 09/21/06 Page 3 of 3