Brewer v. Gilroy et al
Filing
8
OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Ronald A. White : Denying 7 Motion for Appointment of Counsel. (acg, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
DANNY DEWAYNE BREWER,
Plaintiff,
v.
DEANA GILROY, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. CIV 13-471-RAW-SPS
OPINION AND ORDER
DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
Plaintiff has filed a motion requesting the court to appoint counsel to assist with
discovery in this action. 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. 7] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 18th day of November 2013.
Dated this 18th day of November, 2013.
J4h4i0
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?