Ezell v. Wilkinson et al

Filing 8

OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Frank H. Seay : Denying 3 Motion for Appointment of Counsel. (acg, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

JAMES R. EZELL, III,
Plaintiff,
v.
TIM WILKINSON, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CIV 12-133-FHS-SPS

OPINION AND ORDER
DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
Plaintiff has filed a motion requesting the court to appoint counsel. 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. 3] is DENIED.