From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jackson v. Wilkerson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Sep 22, 2014
No. CIV 13-081-RAW-SPS (E.D. Okla. Sep. 22, 2014)

Opinion

No. CIV 13-081-RAW-SPS

09-22-2014

ROBERT EARL JACKSON, Plaintiff, v. WARDEN WILKERSON, et al., Defendants.


OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Plaintiff 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 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 (Docket No. 38) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 22nd day of September 2014.

/s/_________

RONALD A. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Jackson v. Wilkerson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Sep 22, 2014
No. CIV 13-081-RAW-SPS (E.D. Okla. Sep. 22, 2014)
Case details for

Jackson v. Wilkerson

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT EARL JACKSON, Plaintiff, v. WARDEN WILKERSON, et al., Defendants.

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

Date published: Sep 22, 2014

Citations

No. CIV 13-081-RAW-SPS (E.D. Okla. Sep. 22, 2014)