Oliver v. Hayes et al, No. 6:2012cv00020 - Document 31 (E.D. Okla. 2013)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Ronald A. White : Denying 24 plaintiff's second Motion for Appointment of Counsel and denying 24 Motion for filing fee. (acg, Deputy Clerk)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORpiiLE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA D MAR 2 S Z013 PHILLIP M. OLIVER, Plaintiff, v. ANDREW HAYES and JUDGE ROBIN ADAIR, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) WILLIAM B. GUTHRIE Clerk, By u.s. District Cout1 Deputy clerk No. CIV 12-020-RAW-SPS OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff has filed a motion concerning his initial partial filing fee [Docket No. 24] as set forth in the court's February 14, 2012, order granting leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Docket No.6]. The court's order directed plaintiff to pay the entire filing fee of$350.00 with an initial partial filing fee of $6.00, which was paid on April 26, 2012, leaving a balance of$344.00. Plaintiff remains obligated to pay this balance in accordance with the court's order of February 14, 2012. Therefore, to the extent he is contesting additional payments on the balance of the filing fee, the motion is denied. Plaintiff also makes a second request for appointment of counsel in his motion, because he has vision limitations, and the inmate who was assisting him with his legal work no longer is at the plaintiffs facility. He still bears the burden of convincing the court that his claim has sufficient merit to warrant appointment of counsel. McCarthy v. Weinberg, 7 53 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 claim, 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 reconsideration of 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 (lOth Cir. 1991); See also Rucks v. Boergermann, 57 F.3d 978, 979 (lOth Cir. 1995). ACCORDINGLY, plaintiffs motion regarding his filing fee and his second request for appointment of counsel [Docket No. 24] is DENIED. /} / -fi-J IT IS SO ORDERED this .?L-U' day ofMarch 2013. RONALD A. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

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.