Skadal v. McIntosh County Board of County Commissioners et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
AARON SKADAL, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. CIV 24-060-RAW-JAR
)
McINTOSH COUNTY, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
OPINION AND ORDER
DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
Plaintiff has filed a motion requesting the Court to appoint counsel (Dkt. 5). 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).
ACCORDINGLY, Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. 5) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 7th day of May 2024.
______________________________________
RONALD A. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6:24-cv-00060-RAW-JAR Document 11 Filed in ED/OK on 05/07/24 Page 1 of 1