Barnett v. Ray et al

Filing 33

OPINION AND ORDER by District Judge James H. Payne ; denying 27 Motion for Appointment of Counsel (lsa, Chambers)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
CALVIN EUGENE BARNETT, Plaintiff, v. CHARLES RAY, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. CIV 09-176-JHP-SPS

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL Plaintiff has filed a motion requesting the court to appoint counsel [Docket No. 27]. He bears the burden of convincing the court that his claim has sufficient merit to warrant appointment of counsel. 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). ACCORDINGLY, plaintiff's motion [Docket No. 27] is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED this 22nd day of September 2009.