Navejar v. Iyiola

Dist. Ct. erred in granting defendants-prison officials’ motion for summary judgment in plaintiff-prisoner’s action alleging that defendants used excessive force when subduing him after plaintiff ignored directive from prison guard, where Dist. Ct. abused its discretion in denying plaintiff’s request for recruitment of counsel to assist him in his claim. Dist. Ct. used wrong legal standard under Gil, 381 F3d 649, which focused on plaintiff’s competency to try case by himself, rather than plaintiff’s ability to gather evidence and prepare for case, when denying defendant’s motion for recruitment of counsel. Moreover, absence of counsel prejudiced plaintiff where defendants erroneously claimed in summary judgment motion that: (1) plaintiff’s sworn statement in his response to summary judgment motion constituted improper “self-serving” evidence; and (2) plaintiff’s claim was precluded under Heck where plaintiff had been found guilty of disobeying guard. Ct. further noted that counsel was necessary because plaintiff’s recent transfer to different prison hampered his ability to gather supporting evidence.