From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Duncan v. Allbaugh

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Jun 17, 2016
No. CIV 15-474-JHP-KEW (E.D. Okla. Jun. 17, 2016)

Opinion

No. CIV 15-474-JHP-KEW

06-17-2016

ARLEY LEE DUNCAN, Petitioner, v. JOE ALLBAUGH, Department of Corrections Interim Director, Respondent.


OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Petitioner has filed a motion requesting the court to appoint counsel. He bears the burden of convincing the court that his 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 petitioner's claim, 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 petitioner'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, petitioner's motion (Docket No. 7) is DENIED.

/s/_________

Frank H. Seay

United States District Judge

Eastern District of Oklahoma


Summaries of

Duncan v. Allbaugh

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Jun 17, 2016
No. CIV 15-474-JHP-KEW (E.D. Okla. Jun. 17, 2016)
Case details for

Duncan v. Allbaugh

Case Details

Full title:ARLEY LEE DUNCAN, Petitioner, v. JOE ALLBAUGH, Department of Corrections…

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

Date published: Jun 17, 2016

Citations

No. CIV 15-474-JHP-KEW (E.D. Okla. Jun. 17, 2016)