McCleary v. Yates

E.D. Oklahoma

McCleary v. Yates

DecidedMarch 5, 2020

Docket6:20-cv-00032

StatusUnknown

This text of McCleary v. Yates (McCleary v. Yates) 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

McCleary v. Yates, (E.D. Okla. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA ANGELO VERNON McCLEARY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. CIV 20-032-RAW-SPS ) OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT ) OF CORRECTIONS, DAVIS ) CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, and ) CORE CIVIC, INC., ) ) Defendants. ) OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, INVESTIGATORS, AND STATE AND FEDERAL AUDITORS Plaintiff has filed a motion requesting the Court to appoint counsel, investigators, and state and federal auditors (Dkt. 6). He also wants to file state and federal criminal charges against “organizations,” presumably the defendants. Id. Plaintiff bears the burden of convincing the Court that his claim has sufficient merit to warrant appointment of counsel. 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). To the extent Plaintiff is requesting investigators and state and federal auditors, there is no right to such appointment. Furthermore, there is no constitutional right to have someone criminally prosecuted. Oliver v. Collins, 914 F.2d 56, 60 (5th Cir. 1990). Plaintiff has no legal basis to pursue criminal charges through this civil action, because “a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another.” Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614,

619 (1973). See also Florance v. Buchmeyer, 500 F. Supp. 2d 618, 626 (N.D. Tex. 2007) (“[A] private citizen cannot enforce criminal statutes in a civil action.”). ACCORDINGLY, Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. 6) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED this 5th day of March 2020.

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 ANGELO VERNON McCLEARY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. CIV 20-032-RAW-SPS ) OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT ) OF CORRECTIONS, DAVIS ) CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, and ) CORE CIVIC, INC., ) ) Defendants. ) OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, INVESTIGATORS, AND STATE AND FEDERAL AUDITORS Plaintiff has filed a motion requesting the Court to appoint counsel, investigators, and state and federal auditors (Dkt. 6). He also wants to file state and federal criminal charges against “organizations,” presumably the defendants. Id. Plaintiff bears the burden of convincing the Court that his claim has sufficient merit to warrant appointment of counsel. 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). To the extent Plaintiff is requesting investigators and state and federal auditors, there is no right to such appointment. Furthermore, there is no constitutional right to have someone criminally prosecuted. Oliver v. Collins, 914 F.2d 56, 60 (5th Cir. 1990). Plaintiff has no legal basis to pursue criminal charges through this civil action, because “a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another.” Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614,

619 (1973). See also Florance v. Buchmeyer, 500 F. Supp. 2d 618, 626 (N.D. Tex. 2007) (“[A] private citizen cannot enforce criminal statutes in a civil action.”). ACCORDINGLY, Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. 6) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED this 5th day of March 2020.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

McCleary v. Yates, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccleary-v-yates-oked-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack