Watson v. Corrections Corporation of America et al, No. 6:2014cv00454 - Document 53 (E.D. Okla. 2016)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Ronald A. White : Denying 48 Motion for Appointment of Counsel. (acg, Deputy Clerk)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Watson v. Corrections Corporation of America et al Doc. 53 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA BRYON T. WATSON, Plaintiff, v. CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CIV 14-454-RAW-SPS OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL Plaintiff has filed a second motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. 48), raising the same issues as his first motion requesting the court to appoint counsel (Dkt. 16). 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 has carefully reexamined the merits of plaintiff’s 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 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 second motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. 48) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of May 2016. Dated this 12th day of May, 2016. 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.
