From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hines v. Allbaugh

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Jun 25, 2020
No. CIV 19-215-RAW-SPS (E.D. Okla. Jun. 25, 2020)

Opinion

No. CIV 19-215-RAW-SPS

06-25-2020

THURMAN HARVEY HINES, Plaintiff, v. JOE ALLBAUGH, et al., Defendants.


OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AND THIRD MOTIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

On June 16, 2020, Plaintiff filed two motions for appointment of counsel (Dkts. 79, 80). He alleges, among other things, that since his release from custody, he has been indigent and homeless. He is, however, receiving adequate medical and mental health treatment. He asserts the numerous constitutional claims in his case are complex, and he has limited access to online legal materials.

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 the factual issues raised in his allegations, and his ability to investigate crucial facts. See McCarthy v. Weinberg, 753 F.2d 836, 838 (10th Cir. 1985) (citing Maclin v. Freake, 650 F.2d 885, 887-88 (7th Cir. 1981)). The Court concludes the issues are not complex, and Plaintiff appears capable of adequately presenting facts and arguments.

ACCORDINGLY, Plaintiff's second and third motions for appointment of counsel (Dkts. 79 and 80) are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 25th day of June 2020.

/s/_________

Ronald A. White

United States District Judge

Eastern District of Oklahoma


Summaries of

Hines v. Allbaugh

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Jun 25, 2020
No. CIV 19-215-RAW-SPS (E.D. Okla. Jun. 25, 2020)
Case details for

Hines v. Allbaugh

Case Details

Full title:THURMAN HARVEY HINES, Plaintiff, v. JOE ALLBAUGH, et al., Defendants.

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

Date published: Jun 25, 2020

Citations

No. CIV 19-215-RAW-SPS (E.D. Okla. Jun. 25, 2020)