Rice v. Houdyshell et al, No. 6:2013cv00095 - Document 87 (E.D. Okla. 2015)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Frank H. Seay: Denying 85 Motion for Appointment of Counsel. (acg, Deputy Clerk)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Rice v. Houdyshell et al Doc. 87 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA STANLEY W. RICE, Plaintiff, v. THOMAS HOUDYSHELL, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CIV 13-095-FHS-SPS OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff has filed another request for appointment of counsel, again alleging he takes numerous prescription medications which affect his ability to comprehend the issues of this case or to respond to the defendants’ pleadings and discovery requests. He also asserts he needs an attorney for his scheduled deposition. The court has reexamined the merits of plaintiff’s claims, the nature of his factual 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 careful review and consideration of plaintiff’s ability to present his claims and the complexity of the legal issues raised by the claims, the court again 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 (Dkt. 85) is DENIED. Dated: May 26, 2015 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.
