Rice v. Houdyshell et al

Filing 87

OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Frank H. Seay: Denying 85 Motion for Appointment of Counsel. (acg, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
STANLEY W. RICE,
Plaintiff,
v.
THOMAS HOUDYSHELL, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CIV 13-095-FHS-SPS

OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff has filed another request for appointment of counsel, again alleging he takes
numerous prescription medications which affect his ability to comprehend the issues of this
case or to respond to the defendants’ pleadings and discovery requests. He also asserts he
needs an attorney for his scheduled deposition.
The court has reexamined the merits of plaintiff’s claims, the nature of his factual
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 careful review and
consideration of plaintiff’s ability to present his claims and the complexity of the legal issues
raised by the claims, the court again 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 (Dkt. 85) is DENIED.

Dated: May 26, 2015