Villasana v. Jordan

E.D. Oklahoma

Villasana v. Jordan

DecidedDecember 12, 2024

Docket6:24-cv-00399

StatusUnknown

This text of Villasana v. Jordan (Villasana v. Jordan) 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

Villasana v. Jordan, (E.D. Okla. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA JOE LUIS VILLASANA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. CIV 24-399-RAW-JAR ) SUZANNE JORDAN, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL Plaintiff has filed two motions requesting the Court to appoint counsel. (Dkts. 3, 6). 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 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 Petitioner’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). ACCORDINGLY, Plaintiff’s motions for appointment of counsel (Dkts. 3, 6) are DENIED. Dated this 12th day of December 2024. __________________________________ RONALD A. WHITE 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 JOE LUIS VILLASANA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. CIV 24-399-RAW-JAR ) SUZANNE JORDAN, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL Plaintiff has filed two motions requesting the Court to appoint counsel. (Dkts. 3, 6). 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 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 Petitioner’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). ACCORDINGLY, Plaintiff’s motions for appointment of counsel (Dkts. 3, 6) are DENIED. Dated this 12th day of December 2024. __________________________________ RONALD A. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Villasana v. Jordan, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/villasana-v-jordan-oked-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack