Thomas James v. Lorenzo Eli, 889 F.3d 320

Thomas James, an Arizona inmate, developed an infected ingrown toenail and later sustained a comminuted left mandibular fracture while confined in Indiana (New Castle) in 2007; he later returned to Arizona.
James sued Dr. Lorenzo Eli (New Castle staff physician) and Dr. Nicolas Villanustre (Wishard Hospital plastic surgeon) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference for treatment of the toe and jaw.
James repeatedly requested court‑appointed counsel while proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis; early requests were denied as premature but later requests (Feb. and June 2014) were denied on the merits by the district court, which found James competent to litigate.
The district court granted summary judgment for Villanustre (Sept. 2014) after James did not respond, and later granted summary judgment for Eli (Aug. 2015) finding James’s filings lacked admissible evidence.
The Seventh Circuit held the district court abused its discretion by denying James’s later requests for appointed counsel at the summary judgment/discovery stage because of case complexity, James’s distance from the forum, and his inability to develop admissible evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court abused its discretion by denying appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) at advanced stage	James argued he attempted to obtain counsel, faced complex medical and procedural issues, was geographically remote from witnesses/documents, and lacked ability to conduct discovery or secure expert testimony.	Defendants implicitly argued no right to counsel; district court found James competent based on his filings and that case issues were not so complex to require counsel.	Reversed: district court abused discretion by not adequately considering the factors (complex medical evidence, state of mind issues, discovery burden, and prisoner’s transfer) when denying counsel at summary judgment stage.
Whether denial of counsel prejudiced plaintiff’s ability to oppose summary judgment	James argued that without counsel he could not obtain records, depose witnesses, or procure expert evidence, and thus could not present admissible evidence opposing summary judgment.	Defendants contended James had opportunities to litigate and file responses; district court concluded his filings did not create genuine issues.	Held prejudicial: record showed James failed to obtain records, conduct depositions, or produce expert evidence; reasonable likelihood counsel would have made a difference.

Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647 (7th Cir.) (standard for recruiting counsel under § 1915(e)(1))
Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132 (U.S. 2005) (discretion must be guided by sound legal principles)
Santiago v. Walls, 599 F.3d 749 (7th Cir.) (transfer and distance from forum complicate pro se prisoner litigation)
Perez v. Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 768 (7th Cir.) (complex, advanced-stage litigation demands may warrant counsel)
Miller v. Campanella, 794 F.3d 878 (7th Cir.) (trial tasks often beyond pro se capacity)
Henderson v. Ghosh, 755 F.3d 559 (7th Cir.) (deliberate-indifference cases implicate state-of-mind issues that complicate pro se litigation)
Greeno v. Daley, 414 F.3d 645 (7th Cir.) (medical-treatment adequacy may require expert testimony)
Petties v. Carter, 836 F.3d 722 (7th Cir.) (medical judgment questions are often difficult for laypersons)
Olson v. Morgan, 750 F.3d 708 (7th Cir.) (denial of counsel affirmed where transfer did not explain litigation difficulties)
Jackson v. County of McLean, 953 F.2d 1070 (7th Cir.) (expert testimony requirement in medical-malpractice-style § 1983 claims)
Zarnes v. Rhodes, 64 F.3d 285 (7th Cir.) (cases involving complex medical evidence are more difficult for pro se litigants)
McGee v. Adams, 721 F.3d 474 (7th Cir.) (expert often necessary to show departure from accepted professional practice)
Wilborn v. Ealey, 881 F.3d 998 (7th Cir.) (challenges recruiting volunteer counsel outside major metros)