Gray v. Bridges
This text of Gray v. Bridges (Gray v. Bridges) 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 DARVIN W. GRAY, Petitioner, v. No. 23-CV-045-JFH-GLJ CARRIE BRIDGES, Respondent. OPINION AND ORDER Petitioner Darvin W. Gray (“Gray”) filed a motion requesting the Court to appoint counsel. Dkt. No. 12. 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 Gray’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 Gray’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, Gray’s motion for appointment of counsel [Dkt. No. 12] is DENIED. Dated this 26th day of January 2024. CO Vet Lh Lew JOHN F. HEIVY, Ill UNITED SYATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Gray v. Bridges, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gray-v-bridges-oked-2024.