DeWitt v. Corizon, Inc.

Dist. Ct. abused its discretion in denying plaintiff-prisoner’s motion for recruitment of counsel prior to granting defendants-medical personnel employed by prison’s motion for summary judgment in section 1983 action alleging that defendants were deliberately indifferent with respect to medical treatment of plaintiff’s eye that ultimately resulted in removal of part of said eye. Dist. Ct. should have granted request for recruitment of counsel in light of plaintiff’s vision problems and his 10th grade education, and said error was prejudicial since lawyer could have presented facts to create genuine issue regarding why prison doctor failed to follow eye specialist’s recommendations regarding treatment of eye, or why prison doctor advised series of ineffective treatments that allegedly prolonged plaintiff’s pain.