five guards at Pontiac Correctional Center beat him in punishment for filing grievances. The initial ‐ ly permitted Robinson to proceed on claims of retaliation and excessive force, but later dismissed the case, reasoning Edwards Balisok U.S. (1997), bars the suit ‐ cause some of allegations about the altercation conflicted with his disciplinary conviction assaulting guards. Because conclude abused discretion declining to Robinson, vacate and remand further proceedings.

According to complaint, guards were es ‐ corting him up flight of stairs one of them yanked on his handcuffs, causing him to lose his balance and hit his head on cage. Rather than assist Robinson, guards shoved him ground and proceeded assault him: one guard put her foot on side his face and others kneed him his neck and back. guards then propped him up and dragged him his cell, stopping periodically hit him drop him hard floor. Throughout encounter, guards taunted (who black) racial epi thets. denies resisted guards, disci

plinary committee found him guilty attempted assault. Specifically, committee found “jerked away” guard, tried “throw shoulder into” guard, refused walk, tried bite and spit other guards. committee ordered six months good time credit re voked sentenced year disciplinary segrega tion.

This suit followed. complaint claims retaliation, excessive force, denial equal protection. *3 3 ‐ 3363 district court dismissed equal ‐ protection claim screening (a decision does not challenge ap peal). Nearly three years later, when the finally reached the summary judgment stage, the district court concluded that Edwards barred remaining claims. In Edwards the Supreme Court extended the prison disciplinary context holding Heck v. Humphrey U.S. (1994), that plaintiff may not pursue a claim for relief that would necessarily imply the invalidity of still intact criminal conviction. court recognized Ed wards not bar suit if argued the guards used more force than reasonably necessary subdue him, but the court concluded “plead[ed] himself out of court” by insisting did nothing provoke beating received guards. now challenges merits summary order, do reach issue agree erred denying requests counsel. Though there is no automatic right ment counsel civil cases, pro se litigant’s requests counsel are entitled careful consideration. Diggs v. Ghosh 905, 911–12 (7th Cir. Dewitt Corizon, Inc ., 2014). And an indigent plaintiff reasonably tries obtain counsel requests counsel recruited, should ask “whether difficulty case—factually legally—exceeds particular plaintiff’s capacity layperson coherently present judge jury himself.” Mote 2007) (en banc). review denial counsel abuse discretion, reversing only if there likelihood recruitment *4 3363 have made difference in litigation’s outcome. Id at 659. district court found that Robinson made

efforts obtain counsel, so focus on court’s conclu sion capable litigating case pro se. In support his requests counsel, Robinson explained has only an eighth grade education stays “heavily medicat ed” psychotropic drugs. He added had relied assistance from “jailhouse lawyer” litigate case. district court acknowledged allegations about his limited education medication concluded “capable representing himself” cause had “demonstrated an ability” convey facts his court.

Critically, court did not address conclude disbelieved explanation another mate helped draft very documents court looked evidence his capacity litigate. “[T]hat inmate receives assistance from fellow prisoner,” have cautioned, “should factor into decision whether counsel.” Henderson Ghosh F.3d 559, see Dewitt at 658. We thus conclude abused discretion relying only upon filings basis reject his requests counsel. Cf. Davis Moroney 2017) (emphasizing plaintiff’s intellectual disabilities, including sixth grade reading level, explaining why should recruited counsel). next consider whether suffered prejudice lack counsel. 659.

A litigant’s poor performance before trial supports finding *5 prejudice “there likelihood presence would have altered outcome” case. See Santiago Walls 659. Here lawyer could have helped Rob inson avoid being tripped up Edwards. understood allege was “victim unprovoked attack” any amount force used against him was unjustified complied with defendants’ orders. But acknowledged Robin son could avoid favorable termination requirement “potentially prevail retaliation claim if argues force used against him exceeded any force have been necessary subdue him.” complaint does indeed suggest defendants used excessive force against after fully subdued, so think rea sonably probable recruited lawyer could helped amend complaint avoid running afoul Edwards. Navejar Iyiola 697–98 2013).

Accordingly, VACATE court’s REMAND further proceedings consistent opinion.