Anderson v. Wilkinson et al

Filing 107

OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Ronald A. White : Denying 95 Fourth Motion for Appointment of Counsel. (acg, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
JOHNDY ANDERSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
TIM WILKINSON, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CIV 16-036-RAW-SPS

OPINION AND ORDER
DENYING FOURTH MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
Plaintiff has filed another motion requesting the Court to appoint counsel (Dkt. 95). 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 again 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 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 fourth motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. 95) is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 25th day of April 2018.