Anderson v. Wilkinson et al

Filing 58

OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Frank H. Seay : Denying 57 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-FHS-SPS

OPINION AND ORDER
DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
Plaintiff has filed a motion requesting the court to appoint counsel (Dkt. 57). He bears
the burden of convincing the court that his claim has sufficient merit to warrant such
appointment. 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 (Dkt. 57) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 11th day of May 2016.