Johnson v. Garrison et al
Filing
19
OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Ronald A. White : Denying 14 Second Motion for Appointment of Counsel. (acg, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
DANIEL L. JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARTY GARRISON, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. CIV 18-152-RAW-SPS
OPINION AND ORDER
DENYING SECOND MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
Plaintiff has filed a second motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. 14). He alleges
he needs the skill and knowledge of an attorney to respond to the defendants because of his
“lack of proper citing of legal authority, his confusion of various legal theories, and . . . [a]
recent . . . lack of opportunity to have access to the law library or any law clerks.” Id. at 1.
There is no constitutional right to appointment of counsel in a civil case. Durre v.
Dempsey, 869 F.2d 543, 547 (10th Cir. 1989); Carper v. DeLand, 54 F.3d 613, 616 (10th Cir.
1995). The decision whether to appoint counsel in a civil matter lies within the discretion
of the district court. Williams v. Meese, 926 F.2d 994, 996 (10th Cir. 1991). “The burden
is on the applicant to convince the court that there is sufficient merit to his claim to warrant
the appointment of counsel.” Steffey v. Orman, 461 F.3d 1218, 1223 (10th Cir. 2006)
(quoting Hill v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 393 F.3d 1111, 1115 (10th Cir. 2004)). It is not
enough “that having counsel appointed would [assist the prisoner] in presenting his strongest
possible case, [as] the same could be said in any case.” Steffey, 461 F.3d at 1223 (quoting
Rucks v. Boergermann, 57 F.3d 978, 979 (10th Cir. 1995)).
The Court again 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
v. Weinberg, 753 F.2d 836, 838 (10th Cir. 1985) (citing Maclin v. Freake, 650 F.2d 885, 88788 (7th Cir. 1981)). At this point in the litigation, the Court concludes the issues are not
complex, and Plaintiff appears capable of adequately presenting facts and arguments.
ACCORDINGLY, Plaintiff’s second motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. 14)
is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 9th day of July 2018.
2
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?