Brakebill et al v. Bank of America et al

Filing 40

OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Ronald A. White denying 34 Motion for Appointment of Counsel. (tls, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Jerry Brakebill and Barbara Mullins
Brakebill,
Plaintiffs,
Case No. 18-CIV-104-RAW
v.
Bank of America,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
Plaintiffs have filed a motion requesting the court to appoint counsel [Docket No. 34].
Plaintiffs previously filed a motion for appointment of counsel on April 4, 2018 [Docket No. 5].
They bear the burden of convincing the court that the 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 plaintiffs= claims, the nature of factual issues raised in his allegations, and their 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 plaintiffs= ability to present their 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, Plaintiffs= motion [Docket
No. 34] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 28th day of March, 2019.

_________________________________
HONORABLE RONALD A. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA