- 1 -

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 15-11946

v.

Hon. George Caram Steeh

JACK V. GIACALONE,

Defendant.

___________________________/

ORDER FINDING DEFENDANT IN CIVIL CONTEMPT

This matter came before the Court on April 22, 2021 on the Court’s 

Order to Show Cause why defendant Jack V. Giacalone should not be held 

in contempt for failing to comply with various installment payment and 

discovery orders. ECF No. 57. Defendant’s counsel and government 

counsel appeared and participated in the video show cause hearing. At 

that time, for the reasons stated below as well as those stated on the 

record, the Court found defendant to be in contempt of court. The Court 

has set a continuation of the show cause hearing, at which defendant’s 

presence is required, to take place on May 27, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. via zoom 

video conference.

Case 2:15-cv-11946-GCS-RSW ECF No. 63, PageID.503 Filed 05/11/21 Page 1 of 7
- 2 -

On January 4, 2016, this Court entered a stipulated judgment against 

Giacalone in the amount of $450,091.03 for unpaid income taxes for the 

years 2004 through 2011. ECF No. 8. To enforce this judgment, on March 

12, 2020, the Court entered an installment payment order requiring 

Giacalone to pay the United States $1,100 per month beginning April 1, 

2020. ECF No. 42. At that time, the government had asked the Court to 

order defendant to pay $3,500 per month and defendant had represented 

that he was only able to pay $300 per month. The Court chose an amount 

much closer to defendant’s request in ordering payment of $1,100 per 

month. The installment payment order specifies that either party may 

petition to modify the $1,100 amount upon “development of a fuller record.” 

The Court also stated that it would require defendant to pay $3,500 per 

month if he failed to comply with the Court’s orders. On April 26, 2020, the 

Court entered an order granting defendant’s request to postpone the date 

of his first installment payment to July 1, 2020. To date, defendant has 

failed to make any installment payments.

On March 12, 2020, the Court (Magistrate Judge Whalen) entered a

discovery order providing, in part, that “Defendant will answer the 

interrogatories regarding the money orders” that were deposited into his 

bank account. ECF No. 43. When defendant did not answer this 

Case 2:15-cv-11946-GCS-RSW ECF No. 63, PageID.504 Filed 05/11/21 Page 2 of 7
- 3 -

discovery, the government filed a motion to compel. On July 2, 2020, the 

Court entered an order denying the United States’ motion for sanctions but 

requiring defendant to respond to the interrogatory about money orders by 

July 16, 2020. ECF No. 55. To date, defendant has refused to comply with 

this Court’s discovery order.

Civil contempt serves two distinct purposes: (1)”‘civil contempt is 

used to enforce, through coerciveness, compliance with a court's order”

and (2) “civil contempt can be used to compensate a party who has 

suffered unnecessary injuries or costs because of the contemptuous 

conduct.” Consol. Rail Corp. v. Yashinsky, 170 F.3d 591, 595 n.5 (6th Cir. 

1999). “‘The party alleging civil contempt must demonstrate that the 

alleged contemnor violated the court's order by clear and convincing 

evidence, not merely a preponderance of the evidence.’” Scioto Const., Inc. 

v. Morris, 2007 WL 1656222, at *3 (internal quotation marks omitted) 

(quoting United States v. Ayres, 166 F.3d 991, 994 (9th Cir. 1999)). “This 

clear and convincing evidence must show the alleged contemnor ‘violated a 

definite and specific order of the court requiring him to perform or refrain 

from performing a particular act or acts with knowledge of the court's 

order.’” Id. (quoting Elec. Workers Pension Tr. Fund of Local Union |58, 

IBEW v. Gary's Elec. Serv. Co., 340 F.3d 373, 379 (6th Cir. 2003)).

Case 2:15-cv-11946-GCS-RSW ECF No. 63, PageID.505 Filed 05/11/21 Page 3 of 7
- 4 -

Once the movant establishes “a prima facie case of civil contempt, 

‘the burden shifts to the contemnor who may defend by coming forward 

with evidence showing that he is presently unable to comply with the 

court's order.” Morris, 2007 WL 1656222, at *3 (quoting Gary's Elec. Serv. 

Co., 340 F.3d at 379). To meet this burden, “the alleged contemnor ‘must 

show categorically and in detail why he or she is unable to comply with the 

court's order.’” Id. When evaluating a defendant's failure to comply with a 

court order, the court must consider whether the defendant “took all 

reasonable steps within [his] power to comply with the court's order.” 

Peppers v. Barry, 873 F.2d 967, 969 (6th Cir. 1989). 

The Court finds that its orders for installment payments and discovery 

were specific and definite and defendant knew of them. Defendant was 

and is represented by counsel and had at least constructive knowledge of 

the orders. In addition, defendant’s 2018 and 2019 tax returns show “other 

income” of $65,000 in 2018 and $52,000 in 2019. This is comparable to 

the “other income” he shows on his tax returns from 2015 ($52,000), 2016 

($82,000), and 2017 ($22,000), which are the returns on which his $1,100 

per month installment payments were based. Based on the records before 

the Court, defendant’s income has not diminished such that he cannot 

Case 2:15-cv-11946-GCS-RSW ECF No. 63, PageID.506 Filed 05/11/21 Page 4 of 7
- 5 -

afford to make the ordered installment payments. Nor has defendant 

provided a good reason for failing to comply with discovery as ordered.

Defendant states that he is unable to comply with the Court’s 

installment payment order because he stopped earning income from 

gambling in 2020 due to the fact there were no sports to gamble on during 

the pandemic. His maintains that his only income is from social security 

and some loans from friends, which he needs for living expenses. As for 

why he will not comply with the discovery orders, defendant states that “he 

is apprehensive that sources of loans received by him will be harassed and 

investigated and will no longer be willing to loan him these small amounts 

of money (less than $20,000 per year). Defendant relies upon these 

sources in order to remain current in his household expenses, but rather 

than disclosing the identity of any friends that are loaning him money, 

Defendant would rather simply stop borrowing the money.” Defendant has 

not furnished any information to support his position that he is unable to

pay. The last two years of defendant’s tax returns and his general 

approach of stonewalling the provision of information to the government

belie his claims that he cannot pay.

Case 2:15-cv-11946-GCS-RSW ECF No. 63, PageID.507 Filed 05/11/21 Page 5 of 7
- 6 -

Defendant’s failure to abide by Court orders to respond to discovery 

and make ordered payments “constitutes disobedience of lawful orders and 

thus contempt before the [court].” Williams, 2013 WL 6062383, at *3. 

Defendant has been noncompliant with the orders of this Court and has not 

shown he has taken any steps, let alone reasonable steps to comply with 

this Court's orders. Nor has defendant adequately explained, “categorically 

and in detail,” why he has failed to comply. The Court, therefore, finds by 

clear and convincing evidence that Defendant is in civil contempt of court, 

and sanctions are appropriate.

The Court will fashion an appropriate sanction, potentially including 

home confinement on tether or imprisonment, at the continuation of the 

hearing to be held on May 27, 2021. For defendant to avoid the imposition 

of sanctions for his contempt, he must become current on his installment 

payments, which amount to $12,100.00 as of May 1, 2021. Beginning June 

1, 2021 and going forward, unless and until ordered otherwise, the monthly 

installment payments become $3,500. In addition, defendant must also 

provide answers to discovery as previously ordered. 

Now therefore,

Case 2:15-cv-11946-GCS-RSW ECF No. 63, PageID.508 Filed 05/11/21 Page 6 of 7
- 7 -

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant is held in civil contempt.

It is so ordered.

Dated: May 11, 2021

s/George Caram Steeh 

GEORGE CARAM STEEH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on

May 11, 2021, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Leanne Hosking

Deputy Clerk

Case 2:15-cv-11946-GCS-RSW ECF No. 63, PageID.509 Filed 05/11/21 Page 7 of 7