*1 Before W OOD Chief Judge P OSNER F LAUM , Circuit Judges .

P OSNER Circuit Judge . James, former inmate Indiana’s New Castle Correctional Facility, appeals an adverse judgment, following judge’s grant defendants, under U.S.C. § doctors contends ly indifferent need an infect ed *2 ‐ October long after transfer the New Castle from another prison, James completed medi cal ‐ request form treatment of ingrown toenail was both bleeding pushing into the left side of the toe. Dr. Lorenzo Eli, one of the two defendants suit, examined him the next day, diagnosed the nail as fected, ordered antibiotics of the infection, referred him foot specialist. A week later, when James saw him again because of continued pain toe, Dr. prescribed additional drugs. Almost month after visit doctor removed infected toenail.

The following month, James, who was taking narcotic prescribed deal continued foot infected was healing remove it, fell while “hopping up steps” housing unit, hurt Thrice submitted forms requesting emergency jaw but went unanswered. About month later “cracked” while eating. reported injury Dr. Eli, who told fill out another ‐ request form, did so (and doctor signed it), requesting x rays as soon as possible. x rays taken revealed frac tured left mandible (i.e., lower bone left side mouth).

Consultation plastic surgeon advised, Dr. Nicolas Villanustre, other defendant plastic surgeon, examined advised sur gery passage time since what deemed “good function” recommended soft diet *3 weeks and follow up appointment end of that peri ‐ od.

That was that time being. years later filed suit, pro se variety and other prison personnel, whom he accused indifference infected toenail and broken their failure provide emergency those injuries. He contended that Eli’s failure timely had resulted staph infec ‐ tion unnecessary suffering, failure perform on had motivated what surgery (which performed hospital rather prison infirmary) cost prison, that—seven years later—he still suffers temporo ‐ mandibular joint dysfunction from injury. (Tem poromandibular joint disorder (TMD) congeries con ditions affect muscles, joints, nerves, causing facial pain, sometimes chronic. Symptoms occur one both sides face, head or or develop after jury. See Know Your Teeth : “Temporomandibular Joint Disor der,” Nov. www.knowyourteeth.com/infobites/abc/ article/?abc=t&iid=334&aid=1351 (visited Jan. dis eventually dismissed all defendants except . had asked him, pointing out now inmate prison different state, far Indiana (the Arizona), suffering daily migraine headaches. needed added limited access materials, limited education, no litigation experience, tried *4 to obtain a lawyer but had not succeeded. had treated in Arizona by a dental surgeon named Ronald Quintia tried but failed to obtain his medical record the doctor for possible use in his case. Junior Anderson 815–16 (7th 2013), reversed the declining to try to recruit a lawyer prisoner needed help to locate depose witnesses while housed in another prison more than miles away (in more thousand miles away, remember prison in Arizona). dis present case “is within the spectrum ‘most indigent parties’ because has meaningful opportunity to present claims, has demonstrated familiarity claims ability to them, because issues presented by claims complex, does not appear be case presence counsel make difference outcome.” Without medical expert, how ever, totally outclassed by defense, just like plaintiff Rowe Gibson 2015), Indiana state prisoner claiming indiffer ence prison medical staff gastroesophageal reflux disease, unable obtain counsel medical witness, resulting judge’s grant defendants. reversed told try find him. (The case then settled.)

Despite focus case treat ment, never able full set records regarding injury, staff kept taking away boxes materials during case. His dis *5 15 3034 5 covery requests to Drs. Eli yielded nothing. At judge remarked when in formed provided “timely appropriate care,” without records no opportunity to make a case care he’d received hadn’t been timely appropriate. A lawyer would have particularly helpful discovery case. Moreover, facts which bases are straightforward; assisting discovery not an onerous task a lawyer.

We are mindful there is no right to appointed lawyer civil litigation. are mindful too despite lawyers’ ethical obligation those who are too poor to afford counsel, there dearth lawyers are willing able serve sort 28 U.S.C. § 1915 does not authorize command unwilling lawyers represent prisoners. Mallard v. U.S. Dis Court Southern District Iowa , 490 U.S. 296, 310 (1989). When there scarcity willing lawyers, trial can should exercise discretion assign those lawyers cases are most needed. recognized (and only Rowe v. Gibson ) law suits involving complex evidence particularly challenging pro se litigants. See, besides Rowe , Dewitt v. Corizon , Inc. , 760 F.3d 654, 658 (7th Cir. 2014); Henderson v. Ghosh , F.3d 559, (7th 2014); Santiago v. Walls , F.3d If pro se plaintiff such case unable despite best efforts obtain expert, if case chance suc cess represented counsel, trial should endeavor them him. Rowe Gibson su pra 631–32; Miller Campanella *6 2015); Henderson Ghosh supra 566; Montgomery Pinchak 504–05 (3d

Without expert witness James could challenge de fendants’ assertions that provided adequate care only offering his own opinion on matter—an offer thrice dismissed as mere “disagreement [by lay person] with medical professionals.” his final order refusing invoked “well written submissions,” “awareness facts,” “understanding applicable standard” conclude that he could litigate effectively without coun sel’s assistance. none these supposed “assets” could transform into or find medical evidence establish reputable professionals have strongly disagreed with treatment he received his injuries.

Now it is possible that, more nine years having elapsed since injury his is incorrectly attributing pain dysfunction inju ry; it is possible he received adequate defendant doctors wouldn’t benefit ted surgery jaw. Yet he says he still experiences dysfunction (difficulty eating, sleeping, etc.) recently he’s diagnosed tumor neck, which attributes tumor is close That mistaken, it definitely possible has meritorious Eighth Amendment claim if current difficulty attributable jury if there some type could prevented it, received given adequate treatment. On basis *7 record compiled so far, all we know may suffered terribly inadequate sustained permanent injury.

We close noting this began will soon its eighth year even though it should apparent start need witness order get first base. vacating court reasons explained opinion, urge remand expedite litigation.

V ACATED AND R EMANDED