Bechtol v. Carter County

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

NICHOLAS EDWARD BECHTOL,

Plaintiff,

v. No. 23-CV-254-JFH-GLJ

CARTER COUNTY, et al.,

Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Nicholas Edward Bechtol (“Bechtol”) filed two motions requesting the Court to appoint counsel. Dkt. No. 3; Dkt. No. 6. He bears the burden of convincing the Court that his claims have 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 Bechtol’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 Bechtol’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). Therefore, Bechtol’s motions for appointment of counsel [Dkt. No. 3; Dkt. No. 6] are

DENIED.

Dated this 14th day of August 2023.

____________________________________ JOHN F. HEIL, III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE