Bechtol v. Carter County
This text of Bechtol v. Carter County (Bechtol v. Carter County) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
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
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bechtol v. Carter County, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bechtol-v-carter-county-oked-2023.