Pacheco v. El Habti

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA DELILA PACHECO, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) No. CIV 16-450-RAW-KEW ) ABOUTANAA EL HABTI, Warden, ) ) Respondent. ) OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL Petitioner has filed a motion requesting the Court to appoint counsel (Dkt. 15). She bears the burden of convincing the Court that her 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 Petitioner’s claims, the nature of factual issues raised in her allegations, and her 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 Petitioner’s ability to present her 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, Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. 15) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED this 15th day of October 2019.