Cathey v. Everett et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
BILL CATHEY,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 23-CV-207-JFH-GLJ
LEISHA VON EVERETT, et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Bill Cathey (“Plaintiff”) filed a motion requesting the Court to appoint counsel.
Dkt. No. 3. 	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 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). If Plaintiff requires additional time to comply
with the Court’s orders, he may request it.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel [Dkt.
No. 3] is DENIED.
Dated this 2nd day of November 2023.
____________________________________
JOHN F. HEIL, III
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6:23-cv-00207-JFH-GLJ Document 12 Filed in ED/OK on 11/02/23 Page 1 of 1