Nash v. Crow

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

ROGER DANIEL NASH,

Petitioner, v. Case No. 20-CV-406-JFH-KEW

SCOTT CROW, DOC Director,

Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER

DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

On February 8, 2021, Petitioner filed a motion for appointment of counsel [Dkt. No. 11]. 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 Petitioner’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- (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).

THEREFORE, Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel [Dkt. No. 11] is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 25th day of February 2021.