# Brown v. Yates

> District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · March 15, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10385626

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Oklahoma
- **Decided:** March 15, 2023
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10385626

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
BRANDON LEE BROWN, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. CIV 20-124-RAW-JAR
)
JAMES YATES, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
OPINION AND ORDER
DENYING SEVENTH MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
Plaintiff has filed his seventh motion requesting the Court to appoint counsel (Dkt. 146). He
continues to 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)). Plaintiff again alleges he cannot afford counsel,
his imprisonment limits his ability to litigate, and he has been unable to obtain a lawyer.
Once again, 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)). The Court, however,
finds that appointment of counsel still 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 seventh motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. 146) is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 15th day of March 2023.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10385626. Public record. Not legal advice.