Evans v. Long et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
JUDSON TODD EVANS,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 23-CV-368-JFH-GLJ
CHRIS BRYANT, et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is the motion requesting the Court to appoint counsel filed by Plaintiff
Judson Todd Evans (“Evans”). Dkt. No. 9. Evans 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 Evans’ 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 Evans’ 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 Evans’ motion for appointment of counsel [Dkt. No.
9] is DENIED.
Dated this 15th day of December 2023.
____________________________________
JOHN F. HEIL, III
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6:23-cv-00368-JFH-GLJ Document 12 Filed in ED/OK on 12/15/23 Page 1 of 1