From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Coburn v. Wilkinson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
May 12, 2016
No. CIV 15-195-RAW-SPS (E.D. Okla. May. 12, 2016)

Opinion

No. CIV 15-195-RAW-SPS

05-12-2016

CHAD A. COBURN, Plaintiff, v. TIM WILKINSON, et al., Defendants.


OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Plaintiff has filed a motion requesting the court to appoint counsel (Dkt. 28). 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. 28) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of May 2016. Dated this 12th day of May, 2016.

/s/_________

Ronald A. White

United States District Judge

Eastern District of Oklahoma


Summaries of

Coburn v. Wilkinson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
May 12, 2016
No. CIV 15-195-RAW-SPS (E.D. Okla. May. 12, 2016)
Case details for

Coburn v. Wilkinson

Case Details

Full title:CHAD A. COBURN, Plaintiff, v. TIM WILKINSON, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

Date published: May 12, 2016

Citations

No. CIV 15-195-RAW-SPS (E.D. Okla. May. 12, 2016)