Opinion
Case No. 18-CIV-104-RAW
03-28-2019
Jerry Brakebill and Barbara Mullins Brakebill, Plaintiffs, 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.
/s/_________
HONORABLE RONALD A. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA