A f te r e x a m i ni ng the br i e f s a nd r e c or d, we h a ve c on c l uded  tha to r a l arg umen ti s un ne c e s s a r y. Th us , the a ppe a l i s s ub

m it t e d o n the br i e f s a nd the r e c or d. See F ED . R. A PP . P. 3 4 (a )(2)(C ). 

## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 12

- 1182 E DU A RDO N AVE J AR, P laint if f-A ppell ant, v. A KI NOL A I YI OLA, etal. , D efend a nts-A pp ellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 09 C4108— V irgin ia M . Ken dall, Judge .
S UB MI TT ED A PRI L 19, 2013

— D ECI DE D M AY 29, 2013 

B ef or e E A S T E RB R OO K, Chie f Judg e, a nd W I L L I A MS an d H A MI L T ON, C ircu it Judges. P ER C UR I AM . Edua rd o N avej ar, an I l l i noi s s tat e pri sone r, br aw l ed w i th a pri son guar d. H e sw ear s that2 N o. 12

- 1182 afterguar ds subdued and handcu ffed hi m , they k i ck ed, st om ped, a nd pe pper - spr ay ed hi m t wi ce , a nd then they deni ed hi m a d eq uate m edi calcar e. The di str i ct c ourtdeni ed hi s m oti ons to re cruit c ounseland l ate r en te re d su m m ar y jud gm en t fo r t h e gu ar d s o n h is c l a i ms tha tthe y v i o l a t ed the Ei g hth Am e nd men t
. On appe al N av ej ar ar g ue s th at th e co ur t er r ed by refus i ng to re crui t co unsel f orhim . B ecause the cour t a pp l i ed th e wro ng l eg al st an dar d to N av ej ar ’ s m o ti o n, and the l ack ofco unsel prej ud i ced hi m , we re ver se. W e a ssum e that the f ol l owing f actualall eg at i ons of the c om pla i nt a re tr ue and draw al l poss ibl e infe re nces in fav or of N a vej ar . Bib l i a Ab i e r t a v. Banks , 12 9 F
. 3d 899, 902 (7t h Cir

. 19 97)
. N avej arwas i m pri sone d i n St ate
ville C or r e c t i on al C en te r in 20 08 . On e e ve n in g w h ile proce edi ng to the cafete ri a, N avej arspok e t o othe r i nma t e s i n th e i r c e l l s . Ak i n o l a I y i o l a , a l i e u t e n a n ta tt he pr i so n, o r der ed hi m t o g eto utof the c afet er i a l i ne because pri son rul es f orbi d i nm ate s, w h ile bei ng tr ansport ed, fro m st opp in g to speak to othe r i nm ate s. N avej ar disobeyed the or der, bec am e be l l i ger ent, and pun ched I yi ol a. Otherguar ds soo n conve rg ed o n the scene to as si s tI y i o l a , a n d th e y wr e s t l e d Na v ej a r t o th e g r o u nd whe r e h e wa s s o o n ha nd c uffe d. N av ejar d es c rib ed in a n affid av it a n d ath is d ep o s iti o n the force tha t g ua r ds us ed afte r the y ha ndcu ffed an d su b d u ed h im . H e t es tifie d th at Iyiola kic ke d h im in th e forehead near h is eye, and an u nid en tified gu ard sto m ped his head aga i nst t h e gro und

. N ext a nother gu ard , Sergean t M ichae l G ran t, p ep p e r-spray ed N avejar.N o. 12

- 1182 3 Guar ds the n dr ag g ed N av ej ara l o ngthe fl o o r a nd car ri ed hi m dow n som e s tai rs wh er e Iyi ol a s praye d m or e pepper sprayi n N avej ar ’ s f ace. Guards then left N av ejar alon e fo r a h alf-h o u r in a se gr eg at ion ce ll, w hi l e he scr eam ed i n pai n, befor e h e w as al l owed to w ash o ffthe pepp erspra y. The n ex t m or ni ng a guar d bro ught N avej arto S tat ev i l l e ’ s h e a l th c a r e u n i t, w h e r e n u r s e s e xa mi n e d h i m. Butb efo r e a do ct o r c o ul d pr o vi de m edi ca l a tt en ti o n, Li eu te na ntGl enElbe r so n e sc o r te d Navej ar o uto fthe heal th car e f acilit y, expl ai ni ng tha t he w as bei ng tr ansf er re d to Ponti ac Cor re cti onalCenter
. That a ftern oo n at Po nt i ac, Nav ej arwas e xa m i ne d b y a phy si ci an, who concl u ded , afteradm i ni ste ri ng X- ra ys, thathe ha d su ffer ed on ly b ru ise s a n d sc ra tc h es . Pri son offi ci al s invest i gat ed t h e cl ash be tw een Navej ar an d I yiol a an d c h a rged N avejar w ith four d iscipli na ry vi o l a t i o n s : a s s a u l t i n gp r i s o ns t a ff, c r e a t i n ga d a n g e r o us d i s t u rb an c e, in so len c e, an d d iso b ey in g a n ord er , all of w hich he d en ied. A fter a he a r in g , the d iscipli na ry b oa rd f ound N avej argui l ty. I t co ncl ud ed that N avej ar st ar te d th e p h ys ica l alte rc at ion w h en h e “ su d d en ly sw ung” at I yi ol a and that I yi ol a w as “hi t on th e nose and up per l i p” duri ng t h e en sui ng fi ght. A m ong othe r p u n i s h m e n t s , th e b o a r d r e v o k e d o n e y e a r o f g o o d t i me c r e di t s . Na v ej a r a ppea l e d the r ul i nga nd s ub mi t t e d a gr i evance acc usi ng t h e guards o fusi ng exce ssi ve f or ce. H e l ostbo th the appealand the gr i evance . N avej arthen sued I yi ol a, Grant, Elber son, and othe r unnam ed pri son guar ds i n federa l co urt, al l eging tha t4 N o. 12

- 1182 th e g u ar d s u se d ex c es si v e fo rc e a n d w er e d elib er at ely i nd i ff e r e nt t o hi s s e r i o us med i c a l ne e ds i n v i o l a t i on o f th e E igh th A m en d m en t. See 42 U
. S. C. § 1 983. ( H e a l so br o ug hta c l ai m , no l o ng erpur su ed , tha t th e di sc i pl i ne vi ol ate d his r ight to du e pr oce ss. ) Duri ng di sco ver y, th e d efen d an ts p rod uc ed a few doc um en ts “as a cou rtes y” to N avej ar . But theyr efused N avej ar ’ s o ther re quests, i ncl ud i ng hi s r equest f orm or e docum ents about orr eco rdi ng s of the al ter cati on, ci ti ng se curi ty r i sk s an d b ur den

. N avej arm ove d fo ur t i m es f orthe recrui tm ent o f pro b ono cou ns el. H e f iled tw o of his m otions at th e start ofthe ca se, ano therafterthe guar ds m ove d to dism i ss hi s due- proce ss cl ai m , and a fourth afte r th ey m ove d f o r s um m ar y j udg m en t. Hi s m o ti o ns as se r te d why he be l i e v e d h e wa s i n c a p a b l e o f r e p r e s e n t i n g h i ms e l f : he d id n otfinis h h igh sc h oo l, h e s u ffer ed from (an u n s p e c ifi ed) ment ali l l ne ss , he ha d di ffi cul tywith Engl i sh, he ha d repeat edl y b ee n mov ed f r o m pr i so n t o pr i so n a nd thus h ad troubl e s ecuring hel p f orhi s ca se, and he had been de n ied a cces s t o the l aw l ibra ryduri ng pri son lockd ow ns . N avejar’ s fi rst tw o m otions d id n ot assert th at he had sough t cou ns el on h is ow n; the d istri ct cou rt neverr ule d on thes e m ot i ons. The thi rd and f ourth m oti ons, tho ugh, expl ai ned that N avej arhad conta cted att or neys to r epres ent hi m . The co urt denie d these tw o m oti ons. But th e co ur t den i ed th e l at te r two m o ti o ns wi th o ut ci ti ng P rui ttv. M ote, 503 F.3d 647 (7th Cir. 2007) (en ban c), and i nstea d relied o n o l der c ase s in br i efm i nute o rder s.N o. 12

- 1182 5 I t be g anb y a ppl y i ngthe l eg als ta ndard i n Gil v. R e ed, 3 8 1 F
. 3 d 6 4 9 , 6 5 6 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 4 ) , i n e v a l u at i ng ( 1) whethe r the plaint i ffa ppea r s co m pet en t “t o t r y ” th e c as e h im se lf, an d (2) w h et h er rec ru itin g c ou n se l “w ou ld provi de a s ubstanti albene fi t t o the c ourto r the pa rt i es, potenti al l y a ff ectin g the o utcom e. ” The co urt concl ud ed that counsel w as unnecessar y i n N avej ar ’ s case because he “a l l ege d no physi calo r m entaldisabil i ty” pre cl udi ng h im fr o m i nv es ti g at i ngthe f ac ts o fhi s ca se a nd “[ n]e i therthe l ega l i ssues r ai sed i n th e c om pla i nt nor the e vi dence thatm i ght s u p p ort Pl ai nti ff’ s cl ai m s a re so c om p lex or in tr ica te th at a tr ain ed at to rn ey is n ec es sa ry .” The di st r i ct co ur t g r an te d su m m ary j udg m en t f or the pri son guar ds. The co urt stru c k N avej ar ’ s s tat em ent o f m ate ri al f acts and dee m ed adm i tte d the d efendants’ s t a t e me n t, r e a s o n i n gth a t Nav ej a r h a d c o mmi t t e d t wo criticaler ro rs : ( 1) i m perm i ssibl y a tte m pti ng to cr eat e a f act dispute by ci ti ng “s el f

- servin g evi dence”

— h is affida vit w he re he ass erted that guard s beat an d pep p erspr ayed hi m a fte r he was c uffed an d s ubdu ed; a nd ( 2) ad ding hi s o w n f actualas ser ti ons i n re sponse to the defendants’ st ate m ent o ff acts , r atherthan present in g them i n a s epara te sta tem ent, as r equi re d by N. D. I LL . L. R. 56.1( b) ( 3) ( C). W i th the defendant’s ve rs i on o fe ve nt s unc o nt r adi ct ed, the c o ur t co nc l ude d t ha t no re aso nabl e j ury coul d deter m i ne thatthe guar ds used ex cess ive f orce agains t N avejar. A lternatively, th e cou rt re aso ned, N avej ar ’ s e xces sive- f or ce c l ai m was bar re d by Heckv. H um ph rey, 5 12 U
. S. 47 7, 48 7 ( 1994 ) , bec ause the p ris on d i sci pli narybo ar d fo und N avej argui l ty of a s s a ul t i ngI y i o l a . F i na l l y, the c o ur tc o nc l ud e d t hat6 N o. 12

- 1182 N avej arco uld notr eco verf ordel iber ate i nd i ffer ence aga i nst Elber son because no evi dence sugg est ed that N avej arsuff er ed fro m a ser i ous m edi calco nd i ti on o r that Elbe rs on had a cul pabl e m en talst ate
. ( The dis tr i ct c ou rt ’s tre at m en t of d elib er at e ind iffer en c e w a s c l ea rly c or re c t, so w e s ay n ot h in g fu rt h er ab ou t it .) N avej arm ake s o nl y o ne ar gum ent on ap peal : that the dist ric t co urt abused i ts disc re ti on byf ai l i ng to re crui t hi m a l aw yer . I n a c i vi l cas e, the cour t has di sc r e t i o n to rec ru it c ou n se l to re p re se n t a litiga n t w h o is u n ab le to affo rd on e. 28 U .S.C . § 19 15 (e)(1 ); R a y v . Wexfo rd Healt h S ource s, Inc. , 706 F.3d 864 , 866-67 (7th C ir. 2013). I n P rui tt we r efi ne d the standa r ds f o r e va l ua ting w h etherto r ecr uitco unsel

. I fa pla i nti ffm ake s a r easonab l e a tte m pt to se cure counsel, t he co urt m ust ex ami ne “ whethe r the di ffi cul tyo fthe c as e—fa ctua l l y a nd l ega l l y— exceeds the par ti cul arpl ai nti ff’ s ca paci ty as a l ayper son to coher entl y pr ese nt i t. ” P rui tt, 50 3 F.3 d at 65 5. Thi s i nqui r y d oes no t f o cus s o l el y o n the pl ainti ff’ s abi l i ty to t ry hi s ca se

— i t a l so i nclud es othe r “tasks t hat no rm al l y a tte nd l i ti gat i on” such as “evi dence ga th er in g” an d “p re p ar in g a n d res p on d in g t o m ot ion s.” Id. W he n r ul i ngo n a m o ti o n t o r ec r ui t co uns el, the cou rt shou ld take ac cou nt of alle vide nc e in the record re l e v a n t to th e p lain tiff’s ca p ac ity to litiga te
. Id. We w i l l o ver turn the di str i ct c ourt ’ s deci si on o nl y when th e cou rtha s ab us ed i ts di sc r et i o n b as ed o n the ev i d e n c e in th e re c or d w h en it ru led on th e m ot ion
. Id. at 658- 59. A nd ev en ifthe dist ri ct c ourtabuse s i ts disc r e t i o n, we wi l l r e v e r s e o n l y i ft he p l a i n t i ffs h o ws pr ej ud i ce

— “a re aso nabl e l i kel i hood thatthe prese nceN o. 12

- 1182 7

o fc o u n s e l w o u l d h a v e ma de a d i ffe r e n c e i n th e o u t c o me ofthe l i ti gat i on. ” Id. at 659 (em p ha sis rem oved ). I n i ts or ders d enyi ng N avej ar ’ s § 19 15( e) ( 1) m oti ons, th e co ur t er r ed i n thr ee way s. Fir st, b y r el y i ngo n G il instea d of P ruitt, the c o ur t b e l i e v e d tha t i t shoul d de c i de w hetherN avej arw as c om petent to tryh is c as e. SeeGil, 381 F. 3d at 6 56. But P rui ttcl ar i fi ed that the pr oper i n q u i r y f o c u s e s o n “ wh e th e r th e p l a i n t i ffa p p e a r s c o mp etent to li tigate hi s o wn c l a i ms, ” 5 0 3 F
. 3 d a t65 5 ( emphas i s i n o r i g i na l ) , wi tht ac ti cs l i k e d isc o ve r y a nd m oti on pra cti ce “ that nor m al ly att end l i ti gat i on. ” Id. Secon d , by stating w ith ou t elaboration th at N avejar’ s cl ai m s a re not“so c om p l ex o r i ntri cate thata tr ai ned att or ney i s nec ess ar y, ” the di str i ct cou rt r esur re cted bo i l er pl at e l an g ua g e th atwe di sa ppr o ve d of i n P rui tt because it ig n ores the pl ai nti ff’ s abi l i ti es . Id. at 649, 66 0. A l though the co u rt bri efl y r efer re d to N avej ar ’ s co m petence , st ati ng tha t Navej ar“a l l ege d no ph ys ical or m entaldi sabi l i ty, ” the r eco rd co ntra dic ts i ts sta tem ent. N avej arst re sse d h is l i m i ted educati on, m entali l l ness, l anguage di ffi cul ti es, a n d l ack ofacc ess to fel l ow p ris on er s o r ot h er res ou rc es for a ss ist an c e a f t e r h is tr an sfe r fro m Sta te ville

. See a lso I LL . A D M IN . C OD E ti t. 20 , § 7 01. 180( a) ( re str i cti ng m ai l co rr espon dence betw een i nm ate s in diff er ent pr i sons)
. Thi rd, the cour t a ske d w h et h er rec ru itin g c ou n se l w ou ld su b st an tia lly b en efit “the cour t o r the par ti es, pote nti al l y a ffectin g th e o utco m e. ” Buti n P rui tt, we dist i ngui shed the dist ri ct c o u r t ’ s i n q u i r y fr o m th e s t a n d a r d o fa p p e l l a t e r e v i e w. See 50 3 F .3d at65 4. P rui ttn ow h er e s ugges ts that a di st r i ctc o ur t sh o ul d c o ns i derwhethe r recrui ting8 N o. 12

- 1182 counselwould aff ect the o utcom e o fa case ; in st ead, that i nqui r y i s r e s e r v e d f o r the a pp e l l a t e c o ur t ’ s r e v i e w f or p rej u d ice
. S e ei d. at65 9. By appl yi ng the wrong l ega l sta nd ar d and fai l i ng to co nsi der t he r eco rd, the dist ri ct c ou rtab u se d its d isc re tio n . SeeBracey v. Grondin , N o. 12

- 1644 , 2013 W L 10077 09, at *2 ( 7 t h C ir. M ar. 15, 2013); Santiago v . Wa lls , 599 F.3d 749 , 765 (7th C ir. 2010); P rui tt, 50 3 F
. 3d at 660. T h e d ist ric t c ou rt, u n f o rt u n at ely , i s n otalon e in re l yi ng o n pre- P rui ttc a s e l a w. Man y o the r di s t r i c tj ud ges i n the Nor th ern Di st r i cto fI l l i no i s ha ve r ec en tl y a nd re gul ar l y i ssued subst anti al l y s i m i l arr ulings. W e hav e f ound m or e th an 1 00 r ulings fro m the N or ther n Dis tr i ct ofI l l i noi s s i nce P rui ttusi ng the phra se “ so co m ple x or i ntri cate thata tr ai ned atto rneyi s nec ess ar y.” Se e, e . g. , V ela squez v. Ka ne C nty . Ja i l A du lt Jud icia l C enter, N o. 13 C 0644, 2013 W L 52382 7, at *3 ( N
. D
. Ill. Feb. 11, 2013); A l l e n v . Wexfo rd H eal th S o urces , N o . 1 2 C 5 0 3 8 0 , 2 0 1 2 WL 65 87 79 2, at *4 (N .D
. Il l

. D ec . 17, 20 12 ); B irks v. D a rt, N o. 12 C 7 7 0 1 , 2 0 1 2 WL 5 3 6 3 4 3 9 , a t* 3 ( N. D. I l l

. Oc t
. 3 0, 2012 )
. S om e o fthes e o rder s ( l i ke the one i n thi s case ) do not ci te P rui ttor s u b se q u en t c as e la w . Se e, e . g. , H ut ch e rs on v. Cook Cnty. , N o. 10 C 62 15 , 20 10 W L 39 51 89 7, at *2 (N .D . I ll. O c t. 6, 20 10 ); B ank s v. M il ls , N o . 1 0 C 1 4 8 6 , 2 0 1 0 WL 33 07 35 6, at *1 (N .D
. Ill. A u g. 19 , 201 0); Lo ga n v . Go din ez , N o. 10 C 4418, 2010 W L 28369 5 7, a t * 3 (N
. D
. I ll

. J uly 19, 2010). A nd thes e a re o nl y the r ulings s ear chabl e thro ugh publ i c datab ase s; d ou b tles s di str i ct j ud ges have al so used thi s o bso l ete l anguage i n or ders not capture d i n thes e dat ab as es . W e th er efo r e ta k e th i s o ppo r tu ni tyt o r emi nd dist ri ct c ourt s about the ind i vid ual i zed anal ysi s thatN o. 12

- 1182 9 P rui ttreq u ire s, see 503 F. 3d at 655- 56, and cauti on aga i nst using bo i l er pla te l anguage thatwe cri tici zed e n b anc . Eve n tho ug h the di st r i ctc o ur t appli ed the wr o ngs ta ndar d, we w il l not r ev er se wi th o uta s ho wi ngo fpr ej udice

— a “ re aso nabl e l i kel i hood thatthe prese nce o f c o u n s e l w o u l d h a v e ma d e a d i ffe r e n c e i n t he o u t c o me ofthe l i ti gat i on. ” Id. at 659 ( em p ha s is rem oved ). Prej ud i ce ( unli ke ab u se ofdi scr eti on) m ay be e stabl i shed by an after
- th e- f act re vi ew “o fa l i ti gant’ s poo r perf or m ance bef or e o r du ri ng tr i al

. ” Id. at65 9-6 0. I n thi s case , the abse nce of counsel l i ke ly p rej ud i ced N avejar bec au se th e d istri ct cou rt’s ruli ng on su m m ary j ud gm en t reveals tw o sub stan tive errors. Fi rst, th e cou rt ado pte d th e er r o ne o us l eg al ar g um en t r ai se d by the defe nd ants i n m ovi ng f orsum m ar y j ud gm en t that N avej arco u ld notr el y o n “se l f

- ser vi ng ev i dence” t o create a m aterial fac t u a l d ispu te. T his is w rong. “[W ]e l ong ago buri ed

— o r a t least tri ed to bury

— th e m i sc o nce pti o n tha t unc o r r o bo r at ed te st i m ony f r o m the no nm ov an t c an n otp re ve n t s u m m ar y jud gm en t b ec au se it i s ‘ sel f

- ser vi ng. ’ ” Ber ry v . Chi cago Trans i tA uth. , 61 8 F
. 3d 68 8, 69 1 (7 th C ir. 20 10 ); s e ea l s o Da r c h a kv . C i tyo f C hi ca go B d. of Ed uc. , 580 F.3d 622 , 631 (7th C ir. 2009); Bui ev. Q uad/Graph ics, In c. , 366 F.3d 496 , 504-06 (7th C ir. 2004); Payn e v . P a uley, 33 7 F
. 3d 767, 77 0- 73 ( 7th Ci r. 20 03)
. H er e, N av ej a r a t t e mpt e d t o pr e s e nt hi s s i de o f the s t o r y a t su m m ar y jud gm en t t h ro u gh h is a ffid av its an d sp ec ific re f er ences to hi s deposi ti on t est i m ony. H e co ntended th at aft er h e w a s su b d u ed an d h an d c u ffed , Iyio la10 N o. 12

- 1182 kic ke d h im in t h e fa c e, a p ri s o n g u ar d st om p ed h is h e a d , g u a r d s d r a g g e d h i m a c r o s s th e fl o o r, Gr a n t an d I yi ol a pepper-s p rayed hi m , and then l eft hi m al one f or 30 min ut es s cr eam ing i n pa i n. W i thNav ej arl ac k i ng co uns el to r epl y to th e defen dan ts ’ er r o ne o us c o nten tion th at th e d istri ct cou rt m ay safely d is regard hi s “ sel f

- ser ving” e vi den ce, the dist ri ct c ourtacc epted th at con ten tion an d thereb y prejud iced N avejar. Se cond, the defe nd ants ar gued that N avej ar ’ s e xcessi vef or ce c l ai m was Hec k -barred becau se th e p r ison board f ound N avej argui l ty ofdi sob eying o rder s a nd as sa u ltin g Iyio la. See E dw ar ds v. Bal i s ok, 52 0 U.S
. 64 1, 64 8 (1997); Heckv. H um ph rey, 5 12 U. S
. 4 77, 4 87( 19 94 )
. The di st r i ctc o ur t ag ain a g reed wi ththe g ua r ds, r ul i ng th at He ck b a r s the e xc e s s i v e - f o r c e c l a i m. We di s a g r e e, ob s e r v in g as w e hav e before that pro se p risoners are often t ri pp ed up by Hec k ’s c o m p l ex itie s. Se eEvans v. Posko n , 603 F.3d 36 2 , 3 6 4 ( 7t h C ir. 20 10 ); Gil b e r tv. Cook, 51 2 F
. 3d 89 9, 9 01 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 8)
. N av ej arc an no t den y that he di sob eye d or ders oras saul ted I yio la b ecause thos e deni al s would “n ec ess ar i l y i m ply ” the i nval i dity of h is d isc ip lin e. Se eM oorev. M ahon e, 652 F .3d 7 22, 72 4- 25 (7t h C ir. 20 11 ); Evans , 6 0 3 F .3 d at36 4; G ilbert, 51 2 F. 3d at 900. B u t N avej ar ’ s a ssa ulto n I yi ol a i s no t nec essari l y i nc o ns i st en t wi thhi s swo r n c o nt en ti o n tha t th e guar ds answered hi s a ss au l t with exces si ve f or ce a fter th ey su b d u ed h im
. See G ilbert, 51 2 F
. 3d at 901- 02 ( re ver si ng He ck

-base d j ud gm ent a s a m att er o f law against inm ate, rem an d ing for t rialon inm ate’s excess i ve- f or ce c l ai m despi te pri son boar d find i ng tha t i nm ate punc h ed guar d, and or deri ng di str i ct c ourttoN o. 12

- 1182 11

c on sid er rec ru itin g c ou n se l ) ; Skr t i ch v. Thor nt on , 28 0 F. 3d 1 2 9 5 , 1 3 0 1

- 0 2 , 1 3 0 4

- 0 5 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 2 0 0 2 )
. “ Othe r wi se guar ds ( and fo r th at m att erany pu bl i c em plo yee ) c ou ld m au l a n yo n e w h o st rik es t h em , w ith ou t ris k of c ivil l i abi l i ty as l ong as the pr i vate party i s punis hed by cri m i n al p ro secuti on o r pri son disc i pli ne f orthe i ni ti al w ro ng. ” G ilbert, 512 F. 3d at 901. W i thout a l aw ye r f or N avejar to ad v ocat e the l im its of Hec k, the cou rt m is ta k en l y b ar r ed N av ej arfr o m a r g ui ngtha t, a fte r he assa u lt ed I yiol a, th e gua rd s resp ond ed w ith d isprop ortio n at e fo rc e. See G ilbert, 51 2 F
. 3d at 901- 02. B e y o n d th e s e tw o er r o r s , N a v eja r w a s a ls o p r ejud i ced by proce edi ng witho ut a l aw ye r after he was tr an sferr ed fro m S tat evi l l e. Li ke the pl ai nti ffwh o w as tr an sfer r ed to a ne w pri so n i n S a nt i ago , o nce N avej ar w as tra n sfe rre d , he fac ed “s ign ifica n t p ro b l em s” in litig at i ngpr o s e be ca us e, o nc e ata no th eri ns tituti o n, he w as not re adil y abl e t o “i d en tify ke y witnesse s, depose the defendants an d gatherper ti nent e vi dence, ” o r pr o ce ed ag ains t J o hn Doe de fen dan ts b ec au se he c ou ld n ’t a sc er ta in th eir id en ti t ies
. San t i ago , 59 9 F
. 3d at 76 3, 76 6; se e also Pruit t, 5 0 3 F
. 3 d a t66 0
. N a v ej a r e mpha si ze s th athe was r es tr i ct ed fr o m c o r r es po ndi ng wi th i n d i v i d u a l s a t S t a t e v i l l e , i n c l u d i n g th o s e who m igh t h av e b ee n w itn es se s t o t h e b ra w l. See I LL . A D M IN . C OD E ti t. 2 0, § 7 01
. 180 ( a)
. Aw ar e o fthe se l i m i ts , the nam ed defe nd ants avo i ded prod u c i ng vi rtual l y e ver yth in g h e re q u es te d in d isc o v er y. C ou n se l w ou ld like ly n oth av e fa c ed th e sa m e o b st ac les

. Se eSa nt i ago , 599 F. 3d at 765.12 N o. 12

- 1182 W e concl ud e that ther e i s a re aso na b le li kel i hood th atNav ej arwoul d h ave o ve r co m e su m m ar y j udg m en t w i th the as sist ance o fco unsel

. A ccor dingl y, we R EV ERSE the g r a nto fs ummar y j ud g men to n the e xc e s s i v e- f or ce c l a i m a nd R EMA ND f o r fur th erpr o ce eding s co ns i st en t w i th thi s o rder, i ncl ud i ng the recrui tm ent o fco unsel for N av ejar
. See P rui tt, 50 3 F
. 3d at 661. I n al l o therr espects the j ud gm ent i s A FFI RMED .

5- 29- 13