Williams v. Ezell et al

Filing 106

OPINION AND ORDER by District Judge James H. Payne denying 97 Motion for Appointment of Counsel (dma, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
MARIO WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ROBERT EZELL, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-11-195-JHP-SPS

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the court on the plaintiff's motion for appointment of
counsel (Doc. # 97). This court has previously denied plaintiff's motion for appointment of
counsel and plaintiff complains because the court did not explain its reasoning behind said
order. For the reasons set forth below, this court denies plaintiff's motion for appointment
of counsel.
In the case of an indigent plaintiff, the court has discretion to appoint an attorney to
represent the plaintiff where, under the totality of circumstances of the case, the denial of
counsel would result in a fundamentally unfair proceeding. McCarthy v. Weinberg, 753 F.2d
836, 839-40 (10th Cir. 1985). The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has stated that "'if the
plaintiff has a colorable claim then the district court should consider the nature of the factual
issues raised in the claim and the ability of the plaintiff to investigate the crucial facts.'"
Rucks v. Boergermann, 57 F.3d 978, 979 (10th Cir. 1995) (quoting McCarthy, 753 F.3d at
838).

After reviewing the merits of the plaintiff's case, the nature of the factual issues
involved, the plaintiff's ability to investigate the crucial facts, the probable type of evidence,
the plaintiff's capability to present his case, and the complexity of the legal issues, see Rucks,
57 F.3d at 979 (cited cases omitted); see also McCarthy, 753 F.2d at 838-40; Maclin v.
Freake, 650 F.2d 885, 887-89 (7th Cir. 1981), the court denies the plaintiff's motion for
appointment of counsel (Doc. # 97) without prejudice to being reasserted after the
completion of discovery and the disposition of any dispositive motions.
It is so ordered on this 22nd day of June, 2012.

2