Ivey v. Tuggle

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
DOUGLAS EDWARD IVEY,
Petitioner,
v. 	No. 23-CV-285-JFH-JAR
TERRY TUGGLE, Warden,
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER
Petitioner Douglas Edward Ivey (“Ivey”) filed a motion requesting that the Court appoint
him counsel. Dkt. No. 12. He bears the burden of convincing the Court that his claim has sufficient
merit to warrant such appointment. 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 Ivey’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 Ivey’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).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner Ivey’s motion for appointment of counsel
[Dkt. No. 12] is DENIED.
Dated this 20th day of November 2023.
____________________________________
JOHN F. HEIL, III
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6:23-cv-00285-JFH-JAR Document 14 Filed in ED/OK on 11/20/23 Page 1 of 1