Knox v. Royal
OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Ronald A. White: Denying 6 Motion for Appointment of Counsel. (acg, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
ANTONE L. KNOX,
TERRY ROYAL, Warden,
No. CIV 17-004-RAW-KEW
OPINION AND ORDER
DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
Petitioner has filed a motion requesting the Court to appoint counsel (Dkt. 6). He
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
reviewed the merits of Petitioner’s claim, 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 Petitioner’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, Petitioner’s motion (Dkt. 6) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 31st day of January, 2017.
Dated this 31 st day of January, 2017.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?