Eagan v. Dempsey

In section 1983 action brought by plaintiff-prisoner alleging that defendants (prison doctor and prison guards) were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs, Dist. Ct. abused its discretion in denying several requests by plaintiff for recruitment of counsel and then erred when granting defendant-prison doctor’s motion for summary judgment on merits of claim. While Dist. Ct. found that plaintiff was competent to prosecute his case based on content of plaintiff’s pleadings, Dist. Ct. failed to conduct particularized assessment of plaintiff’s ability to adequately litigate tasks ahead of him, especially where: (1) jail-house lawyer, who assisted plaintiff in drafting his pleadings, was no longer in plaintiff’s facility; and (2) plaintiff was transferred to different facility, which precluded him from investigating case and interviewing potential witnesses. However, entry of summary judgment in favor of defendants-prison guards was still appropriate in spite of absence of recruited counsel, where plaintiff failed to show that there was reasonable likelihood that presence of counsel would have made difference in case against said defendants, since: (1) plaintiff had history of various mental illnesses that resulted in episodes where plaintiff would self-harm himself in cell; (2) while plaintiff asserted that defendants had failed to protect him from himself, said defendants monitored plaintiff every 10 minutes; (3) on both occasions when plaintiff had self-harmed himself, he received prompt medical care; and (4) plaintiff failed to show that said defendants knew that plaintiff would continue to self-harm himself. With respect to plaintiff’s claim against defendant-prison doctor, record showed that presence of counsel could have made difference in outcome of case (and thus remand was required), where: (1) there was incomplete picture of plaintiff’s medical condition, especially where plaintiff could not take any depositions; (2) plaintiff asserted that prison doctor withheld pain medicine in effort to teach plaintiff lesson about self-harming himself; and (3) recruited counsel could have obtained deposition of prison doctor to explore intent of prison doctor. (Dissent filed.)