Woodson v. Allbaugh
ORDER AND OPINION by Judge Ronald A. White : denying 9 Motion for Appointment of Counsel. (acg, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
MARCUS DESHAWN WOODSON,
JOE M. ALLBAUGH, DOC Director,
No. CIV 17-176-RAW-KEW
OPINION AND ORDER
DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
Petitioner has filed a motion requesting the Court to appoint counsel (Dkt. 9). He
alleges, among other things, that his habeas corpus claims are valid, he is being housed in
administrative segregation, and he is being denied access to the law library and the supplies
he needs to communicate with the Court.
Petitioner 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.
ACCORDINGLY, Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. 9) is
IT IS SO ORDERED this 17th day of July 2017.
RONALD A. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?