Watts v. Kidman

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying on four occasions plaintiff-prisoner’s request for recruitment of pro bono counsel in plaintiff’s action, alleging that primer sold by defendant-manufacturer irritated plaintiff’s eyes when plaintiff was housed at prison facility and that defendant-prison doctor mistreated plaintiff’s eyes. Dist. Ct. could properly deny first three requests for recruitment of pro bono counsel, where said requests came too early in litigation, and where Dist. Ct made observation that plaintiff understood basis legal principles that applied to his claim and did not display any difficulty in reading, writing or understanding documents he received from defendants or court. With respect to fourth motion for recruitment of pro bono counsel that accompanied plaintiff’s response to defendant’s motion for summary judgment (which was eventually granted by Dist. Ct. on ground that plaintiff had failed to submit expert testimony to support his claim), Dist. Ct. could properly look to underlying merits of plaintiff’s claim to deny said recruitment motion. In this case, Dist. Ct. observed that plaintiff’s case did not warrant recruitment of pro bono counsel, where there was absence of evidence that defendant-doctor had provided negligent medical care or that defendant-manufacturer’s safety precautions were inadequate.