Berryhill v. Henry et al, No. 6:2010cv00091 - Document 5 (E.D. Okla. 2010)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Frank H. Seay ; denying 4 Motion for Appointment of Counsel(trl, Chambers)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA Lavern Berryhill, Plaintiff, v. Brad Henry, et. Al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CIV 10-091-FHS-SPS OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL Plaintiff has filed a motion requesting the court to appoint counsel. She bears the burden of convincing the court that her 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 plaintiff s claims, the nature of factual issues raised in her allegations, and her 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 her 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 is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED this 23rd day of March, 2010
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
