Davis v. Gloria et al

Filing 74

OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Ronald A. White: Denying 73 Second Motion for Appointment of Counsel. (acg, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
JERARD D. DAVIS,
Plaintiff,
v.

No. CIV 17-217-RAW-SPS

RAYMOND GLORIA, et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
DENYING SECOND MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
Plaintiff has filed a second motion requesting the Court to appoint counsel (Dkt. 73). 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 for appointment of counsel (Dkt. 73) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 21st day of May 2019.