Florie v. Butner et al

Filing 21

OPINION AND ORDER by District Judge James H. Payne : Denying 18 Motion for Appointment of Counsel and denying 19 Motion for Assistance of Investigator. (acg, Deputy Clerk)

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

BRYANT S. FLORIE,
Plaintiff,
v.
JUDGE BUTNER, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CIV 16-101-JHP-SPS

OPINION AND ORDER
DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
AND MOTION FOR ASSISTANCE OF INVESTIGATOR
Plaintiff has filed a motion requesting the court to appoint counsel (Dkt. 18). 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).
Plaintiff also has filed a motion for assistance of an investigator, claiming an
investigator could assist the defense attorney in Plaintiff’s criminal proceedings (Dkt. 19).
This request for relief, however, is not appropriate in a civil rights lawsuit. Therefore, the
motion is denied.

ACCORDINGLY, plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. 18) and his
motion for assistance of an investigator (Dkt. 19) are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 2nd day of August 2016.