Ivey v. Tuggle

E.D. Oklahoma

Ivey v. Tuggle

DecidedNovember 20, 2023

Docket6:23-cv-00285

StatusUnknown

This text of Ivey v. Tuggle (Ivey v. Tuggle) 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

Ivey v. Tuggle, (E.D. Okla. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA DOUGLAS EDWARD IVEY, Petitioner, v. No. 23-CV-285-JFH-JAR TERRY TUGGLE, Warden, Respondent. OPINION AND ORDER Petitioner Douglas Edward Ivey (“Ivey”) filed a motion requesting that the Court appoint him counsel. Dkt. No. 12. 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 Ivey’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 Ivey’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). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner Ivey’s motion for appointment of counsel [Dkt. No. 12] is DENIED. Dated this 20th day of November 2023. C ct £ Lew JOHN F. HFIL, III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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 DOUGLAS EDWARD IVEY, Petitioner, v. No. 23-CV-285-JFH-JAR TERRY TUGGLE, Warden, Respondent. OPINION AND ORDER Petitioner Douglas Edward Ivey (“Ivey”) filed a motion requesting that the Court appoint him counsel. Dkt. No. 12. 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 Ivey’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 Ivey’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). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner Ivey’s motion for appointment of counsel [Dkt. No. 12] is DENIED. Dated this 20th day of November 2023. C ct £ Lew JOHN F. HFIL, III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Ivey v. Tuggle, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ivey-v-tuggle-oked-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack