Pennewell v. Parish

Dist. Ct. erred in failing to grant plaintiff-legally blind prisoner’s motion for recruitment of counsel in section 1983 action alleging that defendants-prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. While Dist. Ct. found that based on plaintiff’s adequate pleadings plaintiff was competent to litigate case on his own during advanced pre-trial stages of his litigation, Ct. of Appeals vacated Dist. Ct.’s order granting defendants’ summary judgment motion, where Dist. Ct. should have granted plaintiff’s motion to recruit counsel. Specifically, Dist. Ct.: (1) failed to provide particularized analysis regarding plaintiff’s ability to litigate his case; and (2) failed to consider legal and practical difficulties that plaintiff’s case presented given his blindness and his allegation that discovery would be especially difficult because defendants had already engaged in uncooperative behavior, and because underlying claims occurred at different prison facilities, which created challenges in identifying defendants. Ct. rejected defendants’ claim that lawyer would not have made difference in outcome of case and noted that plaintiff did not procure medical expert, failed to take any depositions and failed to compel defendants to provide answers to many of his interrogatories.