Ladell Henderson v. Parthasarathi Ghosh
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 11816
| 7th Cir. | 2014Background
- Henderson, an Illinois inmate with diabetes and hypertension, was diagnosed in 2009 with end-stage renal disease and now requires regular hemodialysis; he sued prison medical staff under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging deliberate indifference for failing to treat earlier.
- He filed three motions for recruitment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); the district court denied the first two (during pleading and discovery) and later granted the third (after discovery closed and summary judgment had been filed).
- Henderson has limited education (fifth grade), functional illiteracy, and a documented low IQ; initially he relied on assistance from a jailhouse lawyer (another inmate with only a GED).
- During discovery Henderson refused to answer some deposition questions without counsel, failed to complete certain discovery before deadlines, and did not obtain medical expert evidence to rebut defendants’ summary judgment motion.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants, concluding Henderson produced no evidence (e.g., expert medical testimony) showing treatment deviated so far from accepted medical judgment as to constitute deliberate indifference.
- The Seventh Circuit reversed, holding the district court abused its discretion by denying Henderson’s first two motions for counsel and that prejudice was shown because appointed counsel likely would have obtained critical discovery and expert evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court abused discretion by denying appointment of counsel under § 1915(e)(1) | Henderson: low IQ, illiteracy, fifth-grade education, reliance on inmate assistance, and case complexity required counsel | Defendants: Henderson competent (filings were high quality); his deposition refusal sought to manipulate appointment; appointment unnecessary | Reversed: court abused discretion by not focusing on plaintiff’s capacities and needs; appointment warranted earlier |
| Whether presence of counsel would have prejudiced defendants’ summary judgment outcome | Henderson: counsel could have pursued discovery, deposed defendants and hospital nephrologist, and obtained expert to challenge care | Defendants: counsel could have sought to reopen discovery but court likely would deny given timing | Held for Henderson: reasonable likelihood counsel would have changed outcome (prejudice established) |
| Whether medical/technical nature of claims made case unsuitable for pro se litigation | Henderson: kidney-disease evidence and state-of-mind proof require expert and legal skill | Defendants: plaintiff’s lay opinions insufficient; he received routine care | Held: medical complexity and state-of-mind proof increase difficulty—supports appointment of counsel |
| Proper role of inmate "jailhouse lawyer" assistance in assessing need for counsel | Henderson: inmate help is limited and cannot substitute for counsel in discovery or expert retention | Defendants: quality of filings shows competence; inmate assistance evidenced capacity | Held: reliance on inmate assistance should not weigh against appointment; it is not equivalent to counsel |
Key Cases Cited
- Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647 (7th Cir.) (standard for recruiting counsel under § 1915(e)(1))
- Santiago v. Walls, 599 F.3d 749 (7th Cir.) (assessing plaintiff competence against case difficulty)
- Greeno v. Daley, 414 F.3d 645 (7th Cir.) (medical-evidence complexity favors appointment of counsel)
- Norfleet v. Webster, 439 F.3d 392 (7th Cir.) (deliberate indifference requires proof defendants knew of substantial risk)
- McGee v. Adams, 721 F.3d 474 (7th Cir.) (standard for showing medical treatment so far afield of accepted judgment)
- Junior v. Anderson, 724 F.3d 812 (7th Cir.) (incarceration-related inability to investigate supports appointment of counsel)
- Swofford v. Mandrell, 969 F.2d 547 (7th Cir.) (state-of-mind element in deliberate-indifference claims is difficult for pro se plaintiffs to present)
- People v. Henderson, 529 N.E.2d 1051 (Ill. App. Ct. 1988) (state-court record indicating the plaintiff’s low IQ)