Johnson v. Garrison

E.D. Oklahoma

Johnson v. Garrison

DecidedMarch 12, 2021

Docket6:18-cv-00152

StatusUnknown

This text of Johnson v. Garrison (Johnson v. Garrison) 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

Johnson v. Garrison, (E.D. Okla. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA DANIEL L. JOHNSON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. CIV 18-152-RAW-SPS ) MARTY GARRISON, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL Plaintiff has filed a motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. 58). He alleges his incarceration greatly limits his ability to litigate this case, because he has inadequate access to the law library. He further asserts the issues in his case are complex, and appointment of counsel could aid in his ability to negotiate a settlement. There is no constitutional right to appointment of counsel in a civil case. Durre v. Dempsey, 869 F.2d 543, 547 (10th Cir. 1989); Carper v. DeLand, 54 F.3d 613, 616 (10th Cir. 1995). It is not enough “that having counsel appointed would [assist the prisoner] in presenting his strongest possible case, [as] the same could be said in any case.” Steffey, 461 F.3d at 1223 (quoting Rucks v. Boergermann, 57 F.3d 978, 979 (10th Cir. 1995)). 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 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. 58) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of March 2021.

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 DANIEL L. JOHNSON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. CIV 18-152-RAW-SPS ) MARTY GARRISON, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL Plaintiff has filed a motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. 58). He alleges his incarceration greatly limits his ability to litigate this case, because he has inadequate access to the law library. He further asserts the issues in his case are complex, and appointment of counsel could aid in his ability to negotiate a settlement. There is no constitutional right to appointment of counsel in a civil case. Durre v. Dempsey, 869 F.2d 543, 547 (10th Cir. 1989); Carper v. DeLand, 54 F.3d 613, 616 (10th Cir. 1995). It is not enough “that having counsel appointed would [assist the prisoner] in presenting his strongest possible case, [as] the same could be said in any case.” Steffey, 461 F.3d at 1223 (quoting Rucks v. Boergermann, 57 F.3d 978, 979 (10th Cir. 1995)). 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 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. 58) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of March 2021.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Johnson v. Garrison, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-garrison-oked-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack