Stouffer v. Sharp

E.D. Oklahoma

Stouffer v. Sharp

DecidedOctober 19, 2021

Docket6:20-cv-00239

StatusUnknown

This text of Stouffer v. Sharp (Stouffer v. Sharp) 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

Stouffer v. Sharp, (E.D. Okla. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA BIGLER JOBE STOUFFER II and ) TRANSFORMATIONS INT. INC., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) No. CIV 20-239-RAW-SPS ) TOMMY SHARP and WESTERN ) SPORTSMAN CLUB, INC., ) ) Defendants. ) OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL Plaintiffs Bigler Jobe Stouffer and Transformations Int. Inc. have filed two motions requesting the Court to appoint counsel (Dkts. 35, 42). They bear the burden of convincing the Court that their 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 Plaintiffs’ claims, the nature of factual issues raised in their allegations, and their 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 Plaintiffs’ ability to present their 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, Plaintiffs’ motions for appointment of counsel (Dkts. 35, 42) are DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED this 19th day of October 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 BIGLER JOBE STOUFFER II and ) TRANSFORMATIONS INT. INC., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) No. CIV 20-239-RAW-SPS ) TOMMY SHARP and WESTERN ) SPORTSMAN CLUB, INC., ) ) Defendants. ) OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL Plaintiffs Bigler Jobe Stouffer and Transformations Int. Inc. have filed two motions requesting the Court to appoint counsel (Dkts. 35, 42). They bear the burden of convincing the Court that their 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 Plaintiffs’ claims, the nature of factual issues raised in their allegations, and their 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 Plaintiffs’ ability to present their 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, Plaintiffs’ motions for appointment of counsel (Dkts. 35, 42) are DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED this 19th day of October 2021.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Stouffer v. Sharp, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stouffer-v-sharp-oked-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack