discretion we're here there just far more prisoners analytic and general who need lawyers than there are lawyers offering services i wish it were not so but it is the reality judge did was certainly aware that it was also in here is the judge's best interest to have a trial with two lawyers but he was also aware of the limited supply of pro bono counsel and how best to ration that resource he weighed things differently than this year many here would have liked but is that an abuse of discretion the abuse of discretion came here and i think we can analogize it to walker against price where i'd just as hear the abuse within not explaining how the factors are relevant to competency to try this particular stage of litigation which is trial so i think that in denying this to me he has st motion for counsel i think that that might have not been an abuse of discretion by the district court and that's because the reasons that it might have relied on him might have reasonably relied on say mr he has prior litigation experience to show that mr may he would have been able to spot the legal issues and contest the relevant material facts in order to perhaps survive summary judgment and that's what happened here but after summary judgment the district court just failed to  explain the reasoning for why at this advanced stage of litigation or very few pro se litigants actually get to counsel was not appropriate for example the district court said that mr makiya was able to try his case because he had successfully amended his complaint obtained discovery and survive summary judgment but just as an walker the district court failed to explain how any of those factors were relevant to mr he has ability to try case for example there is no explanation as to why or how amending  discovery on his own sarong the let me ask you to react to this one of you know if you think about civil rights litigation that's brought on behalf of those confined on a spectrum a case like this is on the easier and of the spectrum is it not we have a lot of cases for example that involve allegations about inadequate medical care or abuse by guards that touch upon tricky eyewitness issues or medical care  themselves in this particular situation your client needed to present evidence about the circumstances under which he was living that way and so when i i tend to look at you know the success that he had in the litigation including getting it to trial is response to the summary judgment motion that was filed is actually quite articulate remarkably so  and i just when i think about civil rights litigation on the spectrum what i worry about is you get right back to the question the judge roven or is kind of getting at that well your position it risks having to appoint counsel in all cases that end up going to trial so i don't think that we have to reach that specific issue here because of all of the other complicating factors for example having a trial appear by video conference but recently i mean this court's president in santiago birches walls  the court relied in large part on two factors the presence of transfer which is also present here and the fact that an th amendment liber indifference claim presented an issue that was too complex for most pro se litigants here the ability mcgee had to survive summary judgment showed his ability to spot relevant legal issues and to know when to contest material facts but it doesn't go to what the score is held is makes the only the case where only the most rare pro se litigants are able to try case and that is being able to understand the relevant rules of evidence in order to depose witnesses conduct examination of witnesses and that is what happened here that was a deficiency a trial so i don't leave th so mr rose let me ask you follow up on all of this sort of looking at you know what happens to demand the demand curve when price goes to zero right reaches infinity  and we've talked before in our case law about the need in essence to to prioritize what what would what word mr mckee is claims for damages here let me if i'm a district judge in a district outside of chicago i've got to prioritize and i may want to say that somebody who for example has suffered permanent impairment of a limb because of court medical care or who has been beaten badly by a fellow inmate because a guard was deliberately indifferent to a threat i might say important that pro se litigants are are adequately represented and besides the fact that i don't think that there's anything in this court's case law to show that the the relative importance of the case would be relevant to whether  plaintiffs should be appointed counsel i would also point out that you don't think that's i thought that was pretty evident in the nd the carrier will pass by so and so i would i would just say that i think some of the more important factors and showing why there are structural protections against frivolous litigation has to go with just how complicated it is to get the stock is get to the stage is a prison reform education actors motions to dismiss is motion for summary judgment for seven com says and then finally we have a trial and here it was a trial that was to be held by video conference is a very complex case and a very complex trial that i think presents unique situations and this court's case law has consistently been clear to state that there are no bright line rules and that each plaintiff's case is determined on its own merits so i think that just holding for mr makiya is a consistent with its crisp our case law and b would not result in any sort of lot of litigation but i also see that i only have one minute whether there was actual prejudice to the and and whether that prejudice warranted reversal in that what we're looking at here if there was prejudice that would warrant  counsel should be accorded that decision made by the district court ruled on the motions before it and then it does not have a continuing complication to continue evaluating the issue and it's not a standing motion for  standing anything no but i also don't think that it was necessary in this case because he's doing he had to present the evidence that he needed to present that i don't think it's  video conference that the rest of the trial was all in person the jury the judge gannett the parties were all in the same room with able to present that test was also able to present his own testimony regarding the fact that he told the was the evidence that he was presenting claims fail because there was conflicting evidence and the evidence on the other side demonstrated you know if i didn't contest money with it it was very rare for a fetus to be with it had bring it up that he was his prison transferred as a unique circumstance warrant requiring the recruitment of counsel the prison transfers are incredibly common and the last they present a particular hardship don't weigh the scale in favor of recruiting counsel and here are the only issue that you raised before in the district court with respect to his transfers was that he wouldn't be able to prepare his witnesses for trial in district court addressed that in his wrist in his orders regarding doesn't alter the fact that that was addressed by the district finally the fact that those two witnesses represented by video conference doesn't change doesn't make this trial more compact than any of their medication as i noted the p factual question about whether mr makiya was actually able of trying his case and the disappoint you not explain those reasons and additionally the defendant say this was not a complex case but like mckay two attorneys ended up representing the defendants and along with this court belies the claim that the case is not complex and it's exactly the sort of swearing contest that in walker prevented mr makiya from probing and proving the credibility of his own witnesses now this case ultimately presents a plaintiff mr mak a who is immediately in over his head as soon as that the case as soon as trial is looming and this should have been obvious to the district court based on this court case law holding up the district court abuse its discretion and when it denied counsel would re instructions to appoint mr me here counsel thank you very well ms hanson thanked thanks to you and the attorney general mr rose i suspect mr hare was there mr her with thanks to you and your law school