Watson v. Corrections Corporation of America et al

Filing 53

OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Ronald A. White : Denying 48 Motion for Appointment of Counsel. (acg, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
BRYON T. WATSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
CORRECTIONS CORPORATION
OF AMERICA, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CIV 14-454-RAW-SPS

OPINION AND ORDER
DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
Plaintiff has filed a second motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. 48), raising the
same issues as his first motion requesting the court to appoint counsel (Dkt. 16). He 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. 48)
is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of May 2016.
Dated this 12th day of May, 2016.

J4h4i0