Craft v. Galutza

E.D. Oklahoma

Craft v. Galutza

DecidedSeptember 13, 2022

Docket6:20-cv-00483

StatusUnknown

This text of Craft v. Galutza (Craft v. Galutza) 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.

Bluebook

Craft v. Galutza, (E.D. Okla. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA LOUIS D. CRAFT, JR., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. CIV 20-483-RAW-JAR ) CORRECTIONAL OFFICER ) GALUTZA and SCOTT CROW, ) ) Defendants. ) OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL Plaintiff has filed a motion requesting the Court to appoint counsel for him in this case. (Dkt. 65). 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. 65) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED this 13th day of September 2022.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA LOUIS D. CRAFT, JR., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. CIV 20-483-RAW-JAR ) CORRECTIONAL OFFICER ) GALUTZA and SCOTT CROW, ) ) Defendants. ) OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL Plaintiff has filed a motion requesting the Court to appoint counsel for him in this case. (Dkt. 65). 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. 65) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED this 13th day of September 2022.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Craft v. Galutza, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/craft-v-galutza-oked-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack