Davis v. Moroney

Dist. Ct. erred in denying plaintiff-prisoner’s Rule 60(b) motion to set aside Dist. Ct.’s dismissal for want of prosecution of plaintiff’s section 1983 action alleging that defendant-prison guard used excessive force against him. Instant dismissal was based on plaintiff’s failure to file response to defendant’s interrogatories, and Dist. Ct. denied plaintiff’s requests for recruitment of legal counsel, after finding that instant case was not unduly complex and relied largely on plaintiff’s personal knowledge of facts. However, plaintiff's subsequent motion to reinstate case should have been granted, where: (1) plaintiff cited to his mental impairment and low 66 I.Q.; and (2) Dist. Ct. attached too much weight to plaintiff’s failure to serve responses to defendant’s interrogatories since said interrogatories were written above plaintiff’s intellectual level and since said interrogatories constituted form of harassment where defendant had access to documents that contained information that would have answered his inquiries. Also, Dist. Ct. should have granted plaintiff’s request to recruit legal counsel given his mental impairments and his efforts to pursue his case despite said impairments.