Aboney v. Holland, No. 6:2010cv00460 - Document 39 (E.D. Okla. 2013)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Ronald A. White : Denying 35 Motion for Appointment of Counsel. (acg, Deputy Clerk)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
:FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA MAR 2 ! ?01, WILLiAM B. GUTHRIE MICHAEL D. ABONEY, Plaintiff, v. CLINTON HOLLAND, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Clerk, U.S. District Court BY·-~~r.::r.-~ Deputy Clerk No. CIV 10-460-RAW -SPS OPINION AND ORDER DENYING THIRD MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL Plaintiff has filed a third motion requesting the court to appoint counsel. He still bears the burden of convincing the court that his claim has sufficient merit to warrant appointment of counsel. McCarthyv. Weinberg, 753 F.2d 836,838 (lOth Cir. 1985) (citing United States v. Masters, 484 F.2d 1251, 1253 (lOth Cir. 1973)). The court again has carefully reviewed the merits of plaintiffs 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 plaintiffs 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 (1Oth Cir. 1991 ); see also Rucks v. Boergermann, 57 F.3d 978, 979 (lOth Cir. 1995). ACCORDINGLY, plaintiffs motion [Docket No. 35] is DENIED . .r;;5Y day ofMarch 2013. IT IS SO ORDERED thisq RONALD A. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
]]>
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.
