Knox v. Royal, No. 6:2017cv00004 - Document 8 (E.D. Okla. 2017)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Ronald A. White: Denying 6 Motion for Appointment of Counsel. (acg, Deputy Clerk)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Knox v. Royal Doc. 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA ANTONE L. KNOX, Petitioner, v. TERRY ROYAL, Warden, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CIV 17-004-RAW-KEW OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL Petitioner has filed a motion requesting the Court to appoint counsel (Dkt. 6). He 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 reviewed the merits of Petitioner’s 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 considering Petitioner’s ability to present his 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, Petitioner’s motion (Dkt. 6) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED this 31st day of January, 2017. Dated this 31 st day of January, 2017. J4h4i0 Dockets.Justia.com
]]>
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.
