Cone, Jr. v. Pearson et al

Filing 54

OPINION AND ORDER by District Judge James H. Payne : Denying 47 second Motion for Appointment of Counsel. (acg, Deputy Clerk)

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

JOHN ELDRIDGE CONE, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHARLES PEARSON, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CIV 14-410-JHP-SPS

OPINION AND ORDER
DENYING SECOND MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
Plaintiff has filed another motion requesting the court to appoint counsel (Dkt. 47).
He alleges he has only a ninth-grade education and is “unable to keep up [or] understand
most of the things going on in this suit.” Id. at 1. In addition, he has been diagnosed with
ADD, ADAD, and ODD,” and he is unable to investigate the facts of his case or gather
evidence. Id.
Plaintiff still 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 reexamined 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 still 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 second motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. 47)
is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of May 2016.

2