Opinion
No. CIV 14-454-RAW-SPS
05-12-2016
BRYON T. WATSON, Plaintiff, v. CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
Plaintiff has filed a second motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. 48), raising the same issues as his first motion requesting the court to appoint counsel (Dkt. 16). He still 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 reexamined 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 still 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 second motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. 48) 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