Baker v. Yates, CIV 17-368-JHP-SPS. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. Oklahoma
Number: infdco20180627d32
Visitors: 17
Filed: Jun. 26, 2018
Latest Update: Jun. 26, 2018
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL JAMES H. PAYNE , District Judge . Plaintiff has filed a motion requesting the Court to appoint counsel (Dkt. 23). He bears the burden of convincing the Court that his claim has sufficient merit to warrant such appointment. McCarthy v. Weinberg, 753 F.2d 836 , 838 (10th Cir. 1985) (citing United States v. Masters, 484 F.2d 1251 , 1253 (10th Cir. 1973)). The Court has carefully reviewed the merits of Plaintiff's claims, the na
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL JAMES H. PAYNE , District Judge . Plaintiff has filed a motion requesting the Court to appoint counsel (Dkt. 23). He bears the burden of convincing the Court that his claim has sufficient merit to warrant such appointment. McCarthy v. Weinberg, 753 F.2d 836 , 838 (10th Cir. 1985) (citing United States v. Masters, 484 F.2d 1251 , 1253 (10th Cir. 1973)). The Court has carefully reviewed the merits of Plaintiff's claims, the nat..
More
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
JAMES H. PAYNE, District Judge.
Plaintiff has filed a motion requesting the Court to appoint counsel (Dkt. 23). He bears the burden of convincing the Court that his claim has sufficient merit to warrant such appointment. McCarthy v. Weinberg, 753 F.2d 836, 838 (10th Cir. 1985) (citing United States v. Masters, 484 F.2d 1251, 1253 (10th Cir. 1973)). The Court has carefully reviewed the merits of Plaintiff's claims, the nature of factual issues raised in his allegations, and his ability to investigate crucial facts. McCarthy, 753 F.2d at 838 (citing Maclin v. Freake, 650 F.2d 885, 887-88 (7th Cir. 1981)). After considering Plaintiff's ability to present his claims and the complexity of the legal issues raised by the claims, the Court finds that appointment of counsel is not warranted. See Williams v. Meese, 926 F.2d 994, 996 (10th Cir. 1991); see also Rucks v. Boergermann, 57 F.3d 978, 979 (10th Cir. 1995). With respect to Plaintiff's concerns about discovery issues, he must follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court's Local Civil Rules.
ACCORDINGLY, Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. 23) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
