Cleveland v. Harvanek et al

Filing 62

OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Ronald A. White : Denying 61 Motion for Appointment of Counsel. (acg, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
CHRISTOPHER CLEVELAND,
Plaintiff,
v.
KAMERON HARVANEK, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CIV 13-247-RAW-SPS

OPINION AND ORDER
DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
Plaintiff has filed a motion requesting the court to appoint counsel (Docket No. 61).
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. 61) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 18th day of December 2013.

Dated this 18th day of December, 2013.
J4h4i0