DiCesare v. Makinson et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Joseph Angelo DiCesare,
Plaintiff,
v.
Gary Makinson, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 21-CIV-231-RAW
OPINION AND ORDER
DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
Plaintiff Joseph Angelo DiCesare has filed a motion requesting the court to appoint counsel
[Docket No. 88]. 	Appointment of counsel in civil cases is disfavored and rare. 	Plaintiff 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 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 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 [Docket No. 88] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 29th day of June, 2023.
_________________________________
RONALD A. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6:21-cv-00231-FAB-GLJ Document 89 Filed in ED/OK on 06/29/23 Page 1 of 1