Leonard DeWitt v. Corizon, Inc.
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 14236
7th Cir.2014Background
- Dewitt, an inmate with blind left eye and impaired right eye, challenged a district court summary judgment denial in a deliberate indifference §1983 suit.
- Plaintiffs alleged Corizon, Wirth, Mitcheff, and Rajoli delayed or denied appropriate glaucoma treatment.
- Dewitt repeatedly sought healthcare and, later, recruitment of counsel to aid discovery given his education level and medical needs.
- The district court denied both recruitment requests, citing lack of complexity and merit and noting Dewitt’s familiarity with his claims.
- Dewitt also argued discovery abuses by defendants and sought relief under Rule 56(f) to extend discovery, which the court did not address.
- The Seventh Circuit reversed, finding abuse of discretion in denial of counsel recruitment and prejudice to Dewitt requiring remand for counsel appointment and further discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying recruitment of counsel | Dewitt argued limitations from blindness, education, and discovery needs | Court determined case not too complex; Dewitt could litigate pro se | Yes, abuse of discretion; reversal and remand |
| Whether Dewitt was prejudiced by lack of counsel | Counsel could have secured evidence and advanced discovery | Pro se plaintiff capable of presenting claims | Yes, prejudice shown; likely different outcome with counsel |
| Whether the district court properly addressed Dewitt's Rule 56(f)/56(d) request for discovery | Court should have considered additional discovery and counsel | Rule 56 requests not necessary for disposition | No; court abused by failing to address |
Key Cases Cited
- Greeno v. Daley, 414 F.3d 645 (7th Cir. 2005) (deliberate indifference cases may require expert proof and complex analysis)
- Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647 (7th Cir. 2007) (evaluate plaintiff’s capacity; consider personal characteristics)
- Santiago v. Walls, 599 F.3d 749 (7th Cir. 2010) (later discovery efforts may indicate prejudice without counsel)
- Olson v. Morgan, 750 F.3d 708 (7th Cir. 2014) (no abuse where complexities not shown; indigent procedural rights noted)
- Bracey v. Grondin, 712 F.3d 1012 (7th Cir. 2013) (complexities during discovery can justify counsel appointment)
- Navejar v. Iyiola, 718 F.3d 692 (7th Cir. 2013) (consider plaintiff’s limited education and access to resources)
- McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106 (U.S. 1993) (liberally construe pro se pleadings)
- Doe v. Abington Friends School, 480 F.3d 252 (3d Cir. 2007) (liberal handling of pleadings; discovery context)