Trecker v. Kalinch et al
OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Ronald A. White: Denying 8 Motion for Appointment of Counsel. (acg, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
DYLAN CHRISTOPHER TRECKER,
CHAZZLYN KALINCH and
No. CIV 17-276-RAW-SPS
OPINION AND ORDER
DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
Plaintiff has filed a motion requesting the Court to appoint counsel (Dkt. 8). 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. 8) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 5th day of October 2017.
Dated this 5th day of October, 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?