Webb v. Cathey, No. 6:2010cv00425 - Document 43 (E.D. Okla. 2013)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Frank H. Seay denying 29 Second Motion for Appointment of Counsel (dma, Deputy Clerk)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA CHRISTOPHER W. WEBB, Plaintiff, v. DAVID MICHAEL CATHEY, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CIV 10-425-FHS-SPS OPINION AND ORDER DENYING SECOND MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL Plaintiff has filed a second motion for appointment of counsel, alleging he is a layman and this case involves very complex and sensitive documents [Docket No. 29]. 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 again has reviewed plaintiff s claims, the nature of the factual issues, 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 motion [Docket No. 29] is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED this 3rd day of April, 2013.
]]>
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.
