T he H onor abl e A l an D . L our i e, C i r cui tJ udge forthe U ni t ed St at es C our tof * A ppeal s forthe Feder al C i r cui t , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_____________ N o. 08- 3615

_____________ L A R R Y L Y L E L A S K O , A ppel l ant

v. HA RRELL W ATTS, Admi n i s tr a t o rf o rNat i o n a l I n ma t e App e a l s ; SCOTT D OD RI LL, R e g io n a l (N E ) D ire c to r th e B .O .P .; R O N N IE H O L T , W a rd e n , F .C .I. S c h u y lk ill , M in e rsv ill e , P A ; R U S S E L L C . H E N D E R S H O T , D .O . M .S . F C .I. S c h u y lk ill ; E D G A R D O O N G , H e a lth S e rv ice s A d m in istra to r F .C .I. S c h u y lk ill ; M s . M . W A M B A C H , P . A . F M G , F . C . I . S c h u yl k i l l ; M r . H E A D E R , L a w L i b r a ry & E d u ca ti o n S u p erv isor, F . C . I. S ch u y lkil l; A M Y L E O N A R D , U n it2 M an ag er, F.C . I.

S c h u y lk ill ; M . P L E S H , U n it 2 C a se M a n a g e r, F .C .I. S c h u y lk ill ; D . S H IR E S , U n it 2 -A C o u n se lo r, F .C .I. S c h u y lk ill O n A p p e a l F ro m th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( 06- cv- 2126) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le T h o m a s I. V a n a sk ie

A r gued February25, 2010 B efore: C H A G A R E S , S T A P L E T O N , and L O U R IE, C i rcui tJudg es. * ( Fi l ed: A pr i l 12, 2010 )2 _____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_____________ T hom as S. J ones J ean M . M os i t es ( A r gued) J ones D ay 500 G r antSt r eet Sui t e 4500 Pi t t s bur gh, PA 15219- 2514 C ouns el f orAppel lant D enni s C . Pfannens chmi dt U ni t ed St at es A t t orney G . M i chel T hi el ( A r gued) A s s i s t antU . S. A t t orney M id d le D istric t o f

P e n n sy lv a n ia 235 N or th W as hi ngt on A venue Sui t e 311 Scr ant on, PA 18501 C ou nse lf

orAppel l ees C H A G A R E S, C i r cui tJ udge. L arr yL as ko, an i nm at e i ncar cer at ed atthe Schuy l ki l l Feder al C orr ect i onal I ns t i tut i on i n M i ner s vi l l e, Penns y l vani a ( “FC I - Schuy l ki l l ”) , appea l s fr om or der s of the D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm entfordefe ndant s and deny i ng L as ko’ s m ot i on f o ra p p o i n t me n to f

c o u n s e l u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 1 ) . W e wi l l a f f i r m. I. B e c a u se w e w rite s o lelyf o r th e b e n e f

it o f th e p a rties , w e w ill o n lyb rie f ly s um m ar i ze the es s ent i al fac t s . L as ko s uffe r s fr om chr oni c hepa t i t i s C , a vi r al di s eas e that3

can c aus e s i gni fi cantl i verdamage. T he B ur eau of Pr i s ons ( “B O P”) gui del i nes on the tr eatm entof hepa t i t i s C , s ee J oi ntA ppendi x ( “J . A . ”) 137- 58, r ecomm end thatphy s i ci ans w ei gh a numberof fa ct or s w hen as s es s i ng the appr opr i at e form of tr eatm entand d eterm ining the b est t im ing fo r i n it iat ing tr ea tm en t. T h ese g u idelines ad v ise th at be fo re begi nni ng a cour s e of tr eatm entw i th the ant i vi r al m edi cat i ons r i bavi r i n and i nt er fer on, an in m a te s h o u ld b e a s s e s s e d f o r p o te n tia l c o n tr a in d ic a tio n s a n d tr e a tm e n t lim ita tio n s . M or eover , beca us e of the pot ent i al s i de ef fec t s fr om thes e medi cat i ons , the gui del i nes i ns tructthatpat i ent s m us tbe ca r eful l ym oni t or ed and e xami ned w hi l e under goi ng a c o u rse o f tre a tm e n t. C on si st ent w i th these guidel i nes, L asko recei ved a ser i es of l abo rat oryt est s, phy s i cal exami nat i ons , and ps y chol ogi cal eval uat i ons befor e s t art i ng on a r egi m en of r i bavi r i n and i nt er fer on. U pon hi s tr ans fert o FC I - Schuy l ki l l on A pr i l 12, 2004, L as ko re c e iv e d a m e d ica l in tak e sc re e n in g , w h ich n o ted h is h isto ryo f h e p a tit is C . A f

ter th is i ni t i al s cr eeni ng, L as ko underw enta s er i es of l abor at oryt es t s t o eval uat e hi s l i ver funct i on. L as ko r ece i ved phy s i cal exami nat i ons fr om defe ndantD r . R us s el H ender s hot a n d o th e r m e d ic a l s ta f

f , a n d L a s k o w a s e v a lu a te d o n s e v e ra l o c c a s io n s b ya p s y c h ia tr is t. L as ko w as al s o r efe r r ed t o a gas tr oent er ol ogys peci al i s t , w ho r ecomm ended tr eat i ng L as ko w i th i nt er fer on and r i bavi r i n. A ft ers eei ng the gas tr oent er ol ogi s t , L as ko w as s chedul ed fora l i verbi ops y . O n O ct ober5, 2005, D r . H ender s hotexami ned Lasko, expl ai ned the r es ul t s fr om the bi ops y , and i ns truct ed hi m thathi s ant i vi r al tr eatm ent4

w o u ld b e g in sh o rtly . D r. H e n d e rsh o t als o e x p lain e d th a t L a sk o w o u ld n e e d to su b m it t o w ee k lyex am ination s an d p eriod ic blo o d w o rk to b e e li g ible fo r th e treatm en t. O v er a y earpas s ed betw een Las ko’ s i ni t i al i ncar cer at i on atFC I - Schuy l ki l l and the comm ence m entof an a nt i vi r al m edi cat i on r egi m en, butL as ko w as eval uat ed and tr eat ed bym edi cal s t aff

thr oughoutthi s t i m e per i od. D ur i ng thi s t i m e, L as ko s ubm i t t ed n u m e ro u s le tters a n d a d m in istra tiv e g rie v a n c e s re g a rd in g h is m e d ica l trea tm e n t. L a s k o b e g a n r e c e i v i n g r i b a r i v i n a n d i n t e r f e r o n o n Oc t o b e r1 7 , 2 0 0 5 . On N o v em b er 8 , 2 0 0 5 , L ask o ref u sed to sp ea k w ith o r be ex am ined b yD r. H en d ersh o t. D r. H ender s hotcons ul t ed w i th t he B O P r egi onal m edi cal di r ect or , w ho r ecomm ended di s cont i nui ng tr eatm entbeca us e the r i bavi r i n and i nt er fer on r egi m en coul d notbe cont i nued w i thoutphy s i cal and ps y chol ogi cal exami nat i ons . D r . H ender s hotcont i nued the medi cat i on tr eatm ent s foranotherw eek, pendi ng a ps y chol ogi cal exami nat i on. T he st aff p sy cho l og i streport ed thatL asko h ad fa i l ed to app ear for appo i ntm ents on atl east three o cc asio n s. O n N o v em b er 1 5 , 2 0 0 5 , L ask o ag ain re fu sed to b e e x am ined b yD r. H ender s hot . A tthi s t i m e, D r . H ender s hotdi s cont i nued the r i bavi r i n and i nt er fer on tr eatm entr egi m en. L as ko cont ends thathi s tr eatm entw as di s cont i nued bec aus e Lasko f iled a n a d m in istra tiv e g rie v a n c e a g a in st D r. H e n d e rsh o t, no t b e c a u se L a sk o re f u se d to com plyw i th the r equ i red phy si cal and psy cho l og i cal exam i nati on s. O n M ay1, 2006, L as ko r eques t ed thathi s m edi cat i on tr eatm ent s be r es um ed, and on J une 7, 2006, he w as r e- s t art ed on r i bavi r i n and i nt er fer on. O n J une 14, 2006,L as ko fi l ed an e ar l i erl aw s ui t , L as ko v. H ender s hot , N o. 05- cv- 0991 ( M . D . Pa. 1 Sep. 29, 2006) , appr oxi m at el yone mont h befor e i ni t i at i ng thi s act i on. T hi s ear l i eract i on w as di sm i ssed for fai l ure t o ex hau stadm i nis trat i ve rem edies . 5 h o w ev er, L ask o ref

u sed to allow b loo d sam p les t o b e d raw n fo r l ab o ratoryw o rk. In addi t i on, L as ko exhi bi t ed abus i ve and di s rupt i ve beha vi ordur i ng tw o m edi cal ap p o intm en ts. O n O ctob er 2 5 , 2 0 0 6 , a re v iew o f L ask o ’s trea tm en t plan s an d labo ratory r eport s i ndi cat ed thatthe medi cat i on r egi m en had notbeen e ffe ct i ve, as hi s vi r al l oad had n o t dec li n ed an d stab il ized . A fter co n su lt ing w ith the B O P reg ion al cli n ical directo r, D r. H ender s hotdi s cont i nued Lasko’ s m edi cat i on r egi m en on O ct ober27, 2006. L as ko cont ends thathi s tr eatm entw as di s cont i nued i n r et al i at i on forhi s admi ni s tr at i ve and l egal act i on s agai nstdefe nd ants . L as ko i ni t i at ed thi s act i on byfi l i ng a pr o s e compl ai nton O ct ober30, 2006. T he 1 compl ai ntnames t en i ndi vi dual s as defe ndant s , i ncl udi ng tw o B O P adm i ni s tr at or s and e ig h t F C I-S c h u y lk ill e m p lo y e e s. L a sk o a lleg e s th a t d e f e n d a n ts k n e w o f

L a sk o ’s c h ro n ic hepat i t i s C condi t i on butdel ay ed tr eat i ng hi m forei ght een mont hs . J . A . 71- 73. T he c o mp l a i n ts e e k s r e l i e f

u n d e rth e F i r s ta n d Ei g h th Ame n d me n t s , th e F e d e r a l To r tCl a i ms A ct , 28 U . S. C . §§ 2671- 2680, and the A m er i cans w i th D i s abi l i t i es A ct , 42 U . S. C . §§ 12101- 12213. J . A . 67, 70. T he compl ai ntal s o l i s t s s ever al s peci fi c l egal cl ai m s : ( 1) d e lib e ra te in d if

f e re n c e to se rio u s m e d ica l n e e d ; (2 ) re talia tio n ; an d (3 ) d e n ial o f a c c e ss to th e c o u r t s . J . A. 7 6 . Af t e rLa s k o f

i l e d th i s c o mp l a i n t , th e Di s tr i c tCo u r ts e n th i m a S t and i ng O rderi nd i cat i ng that each partyhad si x m on ths from the fil i ng of it s l ast6

p l e a d i n g t o c o m p l e t e d i s c o v e r y. O n Ju n e 6 , 2 0 0 7 , d ef

en d an ts m o v ed fo r sum m aryjud g m en t on all o f L ask o ’s cl ai m s , fi l i ng s uppor t i ng paper s on J une 27, 2007. O n J ul y27, 2007, L as ko fi l ed a m o tio n f o r e n lar g e m e n t o f

tim e to re sp o n d to d e f

e n d a n ts’ m o tio n f

o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t; a mot i on forthe appoi nt m entof couns el ; and s ever al di s coveryr eques t s . O n A ugus t6, 2 0 0 7 , L ask o fil ed an o ther d isco v eryreq u est. O n S ep tem b er 4 , 2 0 0 7 , the D istri ct C o u rt g ran ted d ef

en d an ts’ m o ti o n fo r an ex tens ion o f ti m e to re sp o n d to L ask o ’s disco v ery r eques t s , perm i tt i ng defe ndant s t o r es pond w i thi n thi r tyday s of the court ’ s r es ol ut i on of defe ndant s ’ m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent . O n Sept ember11, 2007, L as ko fi l ed a br i ef o p p o sin g d e f

e n d a n ts’ m o tio n f

o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t. O n M ar ch 25, 2008, the D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed Lasko’ s m ot i on forappoi nt m entof cou nsel , con cl ud i ng that Lask o h ad d em on strat ed the abil i tyt o representhim sel f, atl east thr ough thi s s t age of

the l i t i gat i on. O n A ugus t12, 2008, the D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed defe ndant s ’ m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent , di s m i s s i ng al l of Lasko’ s cl ai m s and or der i ng the ca s e cl os ed. L as ko t i m el yappea l ed. II. W e revi ew a dis tri ctcou rt ’s den i al of co un sel t o an i nd i gen tci vil l i t i gan tfor abu se o f d is c re tio n . S e e , e .g ., M o n tg o m e ry v . P in c h a k , 2 9 4 F .3 d 4 9 2 , 4 9 8 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). A di s tr i ctcourtabus es i t s di s cr et i on “i f i t s deci s i on ‘ r es t s upon a cl ear l yerr oneous fi ndi ng of fa ct , an err antconcl us i on of l aw oran i m pr operappl i cat i on of l aw t o fac t . ’ ” I d.7

(qu o ti n g N ew ton v . M erril l L yn ch , 2 5 9 F . 3 d 1 5 4 , 1 6 5 -66 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 )). W e re v iew d e n o v o the D istri ct C o u rt ’s su b stan ti v e d ec isi o n to g ran t sum m ary j udgm entfordefe ndant s , appl y i ng the s ame st andar d thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tw as obl i gat ed to a p p ly . G o n z a lez v . A M R , 5 4 9 F .3 d 2 1 9 , 2 2 3 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 8 ). “S u m m a ryju d g m e n t is a p p ro p ria te o n lyw h e re th e re is n o g e n u in e iss u e o f m a ter ial f

a c t an d th e m o v in g p a rtyis e n title d to ju d g m e n t a s a m a tte r o f la w .” Id . (c ita tio n o m itte d ); s e e F e d . R . C iv . P . 5 6 (c ). O n s um m aryj udgm ent , “w e mustvi ew the fa ct s i n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the nonm ov i ng party , and draw al l reas on able i nferences t herefrom i n thatparty ’s favo r. ” N . J. T r ans i tC orp. v. H ar s co C orp. , 497 F. 3d 323, 326 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) . For L as ko’ s cl ai m thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed s um m aryj udgm entpr ematur el y , w e r evi ew fo r ab u se o f d iscreti o n . S ee D o e v . A b ing ton F ri en d s S ch . , 4 8 0 F . 3 d 2 5 2 , 2 5 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) (cit ati o n o m itted). III . L a sk o f irst a rg u e s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt a b u se d its d isc re tio n in d e n y in g h is m o tio n f o r a p p o in tm e n t o f

c o u n se l an d in d e c lin in g to a p p o in t co u n se l su a sp o n te la ter in the p roc ee d ing s. “In d igen t ci v il li ti g an ts po sses s n eith er a co n sti tuti o n al no r a statutory r i ghtt o appoi nt ed couns el . ” M ont gom ery , 294 F. 3d at498. C ongr es s has gr ant ed di s tr i ct co u rt s the d iscreti o n to “re q u est an att o rne yto rep rese n t anyp erso n u n ab le t o af fo rd couns el . ” 28 U . S. C . § 1915( e) ( 1) . A di s tr i ctcourthas “br oad di s cr et i on” t o det erm i ne w hethercouns el s houl d be appoi nt ed. M ont gom ery , 126 F. 3d at498. W e have out l i ned8

a t w o-st ep p rocess for determ i ning w hethercou nsel shou l d b e app oint ed. F i rs t , as a

“ th r e s h o l d ma t t e r , ” th e d i s tr i c tc o u r t“ mu s ta s s e s s wh e th e rth e c l a i ma n t ’ s c a s e h a s s o me ar guabl e mer i ti n l aw and fa ct . ” M ont gom ery , 126 F. 3d at499. Second, w e have p ro v id e d a lis t o f

f a c to rs to g u id e th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s d is c re tio n . S e e T a b ro n v . G ra c e , 6 F. 3d 147, 155 ( 3d C i r . 1993) . T hes e fa ct or s i ncl ude: ( 1) the pl ai nt i ff’ s abi l i tyt o pr es enthi s orherow n cas e; (2) the co m plexi tyof the l egal i ssues; (3 ) th e d e g re e to w h ich f a c tu a l in v e stig a tio n w ill b e n e c e ss a rya n d th e a b ili ty of the pl ai nt i ff t o pur s ue s uch i nves t i gat i on; (4) the am ou nt a cas e i s l i kelyt o turn o n credi bil i tydeterm i nati on s; (5) w hetherthe case w i l l requi re the tes t i m on yof ex pertw i tnesses; ( 6) w hetherthe pl ai nt i ff c an att ai n and af for d couns el on hi s ow n behal f. P a rh a m , 1 2 6 F .3 d 4 5 4 , 4 5 7 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) ( c itin g T a b ro n , 6 F .3 d a t 1 5 5 -5 6 , 1 5 7 n .5 ). T hi s l i s tof fa ct or s “i s notexhaus t i ve, buts houl d s erve as a gui depos tforthe di s tr i ct court s . ” I d. W e have al s o i ns truct ed that“court s s houl d exer ci s e ca r e i n appoi nt i ng couns el beca us e vol unt eerl aw y ert i m e i s a pr eci ous comm odi tyand s houl d notbe w as t ed o n f ri v o lo u s c a s e s .” P a rh a m , 1 2 6 F .3 d a t 4 5 8 . A s a “ th re sh o ld m a tter,” b e f o re a c o u rt m a ya p p o in t co u n se l f o r a n in d ig e n t civ il litig a n t, “ ‘i t m u s t f

ir s t a p p e a r t h a t th e c la im h a s s o m e m e ri t in f a c t a n d la w .’” T a b ro n , 6 F .3 d a t 1 5 5 (q u o tin g M a c lin v . F re a k e , 6 5 0 F .2 d 8 8 5 , 8 8 7 (7 th C ir . 1 9 8 1 ) ( p e r c u ri a m )) . T hi s bur den i s m eti f the “‘ pl ai nt i ff ha s notal l eged a fr i vol ous orm al i ci ous cl ai m and the pl eadi ngs s t at e a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e. ’ ” I d. ( quot i ng R ay es v. J ohns on, 969 F. 2d 700, 703 ( 8th C i r . 1992) , cert . deni ed, 506 U . S. 1021 ( 1992) ) . L as ko ar gues thathi s FT C A m edi cal9

m al pr act i ce c l ai m , hi s E i ghth A m endmentcl ai m , and hi s Fi r s tA m endmentr et al i at i on claim m et th is l o w init ial h u rdle. W e a g ree . T o d eterm ine w h ethe r th e D istri ct C o u rt abus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng L as ko’ s m ot i on forcouns el , w e mustther efor e ana l y ze the fa ct or s s etfor th i n T abr on. T he fi r s t , and “[ p] erhaps the mosts i gni fi cant , ” fa ct ori nfl uenci ng w hethercouns el s h o u ld b e a p p o in te d in a c iv il c a s e is th e p la in tif f ’s a b ility to p re s e n t h is c a s e to th e c o u rt . M ont gom ery , 294 F. 3d at501. I n eval uat i ng thi s fac t or , court s “s houl d cons i derthe p la in tif f ’s e d u c a tio n , lite ra c y , p ri o r w o rk e x p e ri e n c e , a n d p ri o r l itig a tio n e x p e ri e n c e ,” alon g w ith “w h ethe r th e p lai n ti ff h as a cc ess to n ec essa ryreso u rce s li k e a typ ew ri ter, t el ephone a nd comput er . ” Parham, 126 F. 3d at459 ( ci t at i ons and quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . I n t hi s cas e, the D i s tr i ctC our tconcl uded that , atl eas tup thr ough the t i m e of thatm ot i on, “Lasko ha s pos s es s ed the means and abi l i tyt o pr es enthi s cl ai m s t o the court . ” J . A . 14. T he courtacknow l edged thatL as ko s uffe r ed fr om s er i ous m edi cal i s s ues thatm ayl i m i thi s abi l i tyt o r epr es enthi m s el f, butfound thatdes pi t e “the manyphy s i cal di ffi cul t i es underw hi ch Lasko ope r at es , ” the r ecor d i s “amazi ngl yful l and compl et e of e x a m p les o f

L a sk o ’s a b ili tyto f

ile m o tio n s, d isc o v e ry , b rie f s, a n d e x h ib its re lev a n t to th is cas e. ” I d. A l though a pl ai nt i ff’ s abi l i tyt o pr es entand r es pond t o m ot i ons does not “conc l us i vel yes t abl i s h” thata pl ai nt i ff i s abl e t o pr es enthi s cas e, Parham, 126 F. 3d at 459, w e agr ee w i th t he D i s tr i ctC our tthatL as ko’ s num er ous s ubm i s s i ons i ndi cat ed that h e w a s a b le to p re se n t th e n e c e ss a ryleg a l an d f a c tu a l issu e s to th e c o u rt.10

T h e s e c o n d f

a c to r t o b e c o n s id e re d is th e c o m p le x ity o f th e le g a l is s u e s in v o lv e d . C o u rt s s h o u ld b e “ m o re in c lin e d to a p p o in t c o u n s e l” if th e le g a l is s u e s a re c o m p lic a te d . T a b ro n , 6 F .3 d a t 1 5 6 . C o u n se l f o r d e f e n d a n ts a d m itt e d d u rin g o ra l ar g u m e n t th a t th is cas e i nvol ved compl i cat ed l egal i s s ues , butnei therthe s ubs t ant i ve l egal i s s ues northe pr ocedur al hur dl es L as ko fac ed w er e unus ual l ycompl i cat ed. U nl i ke i n M ont gom eryand P a rh a m , p ro c e d u ra l h u rd les d o n o t se e m to h a v e p re v e n ted L a sk o f ro m a rticu latin g h is a rg u m e n ts in o p p o sitio n to d e f e n d a n ts’ m o tio n f

o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t. T he thi r d fac t ori s the nee d for , and the pl ai nt i ff’ s abi l i tyt o conduct , a det ai l ed fac tual i nves t i gat i on. C our t s s houl d cons i der“the degr ee t o w hi ch fa ctual i nves t i gat i on w i l l be r equi r ed and the abi l i tyof the i ndi gentpl ai nt i ff t o pur s ue s uch i nves t i gat i on. ” T abr on, 6 F. 3d at156. W her e the pl ai nt i ff’ s cl ai m s ar e “l i kel yt o r equi r e ext ens i ve di s coveryand compl i ance w i th compl ex di s coveryrul es , appoi nt m entof couns el m aybe w arr ant ed. ” I d. I n t hi s cas e, L as ko s ucce s s ful l yobt ai ned al l of hi s r el evantm edi cal r ecor ds , pr es ent ed det ai l ed fa ctual chr onol ogi es i n hi s pl eadi ngs , and s ubm i t t ed ext ens i ve document at i on t o s uppor thi s var i ous fi l i ngs w i th the court . A s the D i s tr i ctC our tnot ed, “manyof hi s fi l i ngs i ncl ude port i ons of hi s ow n m edi cal r ecor ds , [and] exce rpt s of m edi cal t extbooks and j ournal s . ” J . A . 14- 15. T he D i s tr i ctC our tal s o not ed thatL as ko had s how n “the abi l i tyt o pos e r el evantdi s coveryr eques t s . ” J . A . 15. L as ko’ s l ack of couns el does notappea rt o have pr event ed hi m fr om m ar s hal i ng the fa ctual i nform at i on a n d e v id e n c e n e c e ss a ryto p re se n t h is c laim s to th e c o u rt.11

T h e f o u rth f a c to r b e a rin g o n th e a p p o in tm e n t o f c o u n se l is th e ro le th a t cr e d ib ili ty d e ter m in a tio n s m a yp lay i n th e lit ig a tio n . R e p re se n tatio n b ysk ill e d a d v o c a tes is part i cular l yi m po rt ant w hen a case i s l i kelyt o turn o n credi bil i tydeterm i nati on s, becau se “i ti s m ore l i kelythat the truth w i l l be ex po sed w here bo th si des are r epresent ed b ytho se tr ai ned i n t he pr es ent at i on of evi dence and i n cr os s exami nat i on. ” Tabr on, 6 F. 3d at156 ( ci t at i on and quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . I n thi s cas e, the D i s tr i ctC our tdecl i ned t o appoi nt c o u n se l at th e su m m a ryju d g m e n t sta g e b u t n o ted its a b ili tyto re c o n sid e r th is d e c isio n if the ca s e w er e t o pr ocee d t o t r i al . M or eover , underthe s um m aryj udgm ents t andar d, cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i ons coul d nothave pl ay ed anyr ol e i n the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s r es ol ut i on of def endant s ’ m ot i on. T h e f if th T a b ro n f

a c to r is th e n e e d f

o r e x p e rt w itn e ss e s. L a sk o e m p h a siz e s h is need t o s ubm i texpertt es t i m onyi n or dert o es t abl i s h hi s m edi cal m al pr act i ce c l ai m under the FT C A . T hi s courthas expl ai ned that“appoi nt ed couns el m aybe w arr ant ed w her e the c a se w ill re q u ire tes tim o n yf ro m e x p e rt w itn e ss e s.” T a b ro n , 6 F .3 d a t 1 5 6 . W e h a v e h e ld thata di s tr i ctcourtabus es i t s di s cr et i on bydeny i ng a mot i on forappoi nt m entof couns el beca us e expe r tt es t i m onyw oul d notbe r equi r ed t o pr es entthe pl ai nt i ff’ s cas e butthen g r a n t i n g a d i s p o s i t i v e m o t i o n b e c a u s e o f th e l a c k o f

e x p e r tt e s t i m o n y. S e e M o n g t o m e r y, 294 F. 3d at505 ( “s ucce s s i ve contr adi ct orydeci s i ons ” ef fec t i vel ypr event ed pl ai nt i ff f r om present i ng his cl ai m ); P arham , 12 6 F . 3d at46 0 (“I ti s troubles om e t hat the co urtcou l d u se the l ack of

expertt es t i m onyas a s hi el d t o pr ot ecti t s deni al of the mot i on forcouns el and12

then as a s w or d t o s l aythe i ndi gentpl ai nt i ff’ s cas e. ”) . O urpr ece dentcannotbe r ead a s r equi r i ng the appoi nt m entof couns el i n everycas e i n w hi ch expe r tt es t i m onym aybe w arr ant ed, how ever . I n t hi s cas e, the D i s tr i ctC our tdi d notbas e i t s deci s i on deny i ng c o u n s e l o n th e e rr o n e o u s a s s u m p tio n th a t L a s k o w o u ld n o t n e e d e x p e rt te s tim o n y . Ra th e r , th e Di s tr i c tCo u r th i g h l i g h t e d La s k o ’ s d e mo n s tr a t e d a b i l i tyt o p r e s e n th i s c l a i ms t o the courtand the court ’ s abi l i tyt o appoi ntcouns el l at eri n the pr ocee di ngs i f the ci r cumst ance s change d. J . A . 14- 15. A l though the D i s tr i ctC ourtci t ed the l ack of m edi cal e v i d e n c e a s th e r e a s o n f o rg r a n t i n g s u mma ryj u d g me n to n th e me d i c a l ma l p r a c t i c e c l a i m, L a s k o ’s c a s e d id n o t f

a ll s h o rt m e re ly b e c a u s e h e w a s u n a b le to re ta in a m e d ic a l e x p e rt . T h e f inal fa ctor to b e c o n side red is th e p lai n ti ff ’s ab il ityto retain a n d af fo rd couns el . “I f couns el i s eas i l yatt ai nabl e and a ffor dabl e bythe l i t i gant , butthe pl ai nt i ff s i m pl yhas m ade no e ffortt o r et ai n an att orney , then couns el s houl d notbe appoi nt ed by the court . ” Tabr on, 6 F. 3d at157 n. 5. T he r ecor d l acks anyevi dence thatL as ko had the m e a n s to re ta in p ri v a te c o u n s e l. C on si deri ng al l of these fact ors, w e con cl ud e t hat the D i stri ctC ou rtdid not abuse i t s di s cr et i on i n decl i ni ng t o appoi ntcouns el . L as ko w as abl e t o obt ai n the medi cal r ecor ds and otherdocument s under l y i ng hi s cl ai m , pr es entthe nec es s aryfac tual i nform at i on and l egal ar gum ent s t o the court , and r es pond t o the i s s ues r ai s ed by defe ndant s ’ s um m aryj udgm entm ot i on. T he D i s tr i ctC our tdi d notabus e i t s br oad di s cr et i on i n det erm i ni ng thatcouns el s houl d notbe appoi nt ed atthi s s t age of the13

l i t i gat i on. I V. L as ko al s o chal l enges the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or dergr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm entfor defe ndant s , ar gui ng thatthe D i s tr i ctC our ts houl d have a l l ow ed Lasko t o conduct addi t i onal di s coverybefor e dec i di ng defe ndant s ’ m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm entand that the D i s tr i ctC our terr ed i n i t s s ubs t ant i ve ana l y s i s of thatm ot i on. A. Itis “w ell estab li sh ed that a c o u rtis ob li g ed to g ive a p artyo p p o sing su m m ary j udgm entan ade quat e opportuni tyt o obt ai n di s covery . ” D oe, 480 F. 3d at257 ( ci t at i ons and quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . “I f di s coveryi s i ncompl et e i n anyw aym at er i al t o a pendi ng s um m aryj udgm entm ot i on, a di s tr i ctcourti s j us t i fi ed i n notgr ant i ng the m ot i on. ” I d. at257. I n D oe, w e hel d thatthe di s tr i ctcourtabus ed i t s di s cr et i on by gr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm entforthe def endant s bas ed on a s i ngl e af fi davi tbefor e al l ow i ng the p lai n ti ff

s an yo p p o rtu n ityto co n d u ct disco v eryinto the issue o n w h ich th e c o u rt g ra n ted su m m a ryju d g m e n t. 48 0 F .3 d a t 2 5 4 . A lth o u g h th e “ e x ten t o f d isc o v e ry. . . is w i thi n the [di s tr i ctcourt ’ s ] di s cr et i on, ” the di s tr i ctcourti n D oe “ne eded t o al l ow the p a rt ie s to d e v e lo p th e re c o rd a s to p o te n tia lly re le v a n t f a c ts .” Id . a t 2 5 8 . U nl i ke i n D oe, L as ko cannotcl ai m thatdefe ndant s orthe D i s tr i ctC our tpr ohi bi t ed h im fro m o b tai n ing the in fo rm ati o n o r ev iden ce relev an t t o o p p o sing the s u m m ary j udgm entm ot i on. B efor e thi s l aw s ui tw as even c om m ence d, defe ndant s pr ovi ded Lasko14

w ith a ll o f

h is re le v a n t m e d ic a l r e c o rd s a n d th e B O P g u id e lin e s o n h e p a titis C tr e a tm e n t. L ask o h as n o t i d en ti fied an yo u tst an d ing d isco v erythat w o u ld b e re leva n t t o the s u m m ary ju d g m e n t m o tio n . G iv e n th e se c irc u m sta n c e s, th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n in g ra n tin g d e f e n d a n ts’ m o tio n f

o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t. B. L as ko al s o ar gues thatthe D i s tr i ctC our terr ed bygr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm enton hi s E i ghth A m endmentdel i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence cl ai m and hi s Fi r s tA m endmentr et al i at i on c la im , a n d b yd is m is s in g th e in d iv id u a l d e f e n d a n ts n o t in v o lv e d in h is m e d ic a l tr e a tm e n t. L a sk o c o n ten d s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt im p ro p e rlyw e ig h e d e v id e n c e , m a d e c re d ib ili ty determ i nati on s, and drew i nferences i n fav or of d efen dan t s. T he D i s tr i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed the del i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence cl ai m beca us e Lasko fai l ed t o pr es entevi dence fr om w hi ch a r eas onabl e j urycoul d concl ude thatany D ef en d an t po sses sed the c u lpab le m en tal stat e re q u ir ed fo r suc h a c lai m . T h e stan d ard foreval uat i ng a pr i s oner ’ s del i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence cl ai m i s hi ghl ydefe r ent i al t o the m e d ica l p ra c tit io n e rs’ p ro f e ss io n a l ju d g m e n t. “C o u rts w ill ‘d isa v o w a n ya ttem p t to s econd- gues s the pr opr i etyoradequa cyof a pa r t i cul arcour s e of tr eatm ent. . . [w hi ch] re m a in s a q u e stio n o f

so u n d p ro f

e ss io n a l ju d g m e n t.’” In m a tes o f A lleg h e n yC o u n tyJa il v. Pi er ce, 612 F. 2d 754, 762 ( 3d C i r . 1979) ( quot i ng B ow r i ng v. G odw i n, 551 F. 2d 44, 48 ( 4th C i r . 1977) ) . A pr i s onerdoes nothave the r i ght“t o choos e a s peci fi c form of m edi cal tre a tm e n t.” H a rriso n v . B a rk ley, 2 1 9 F .3 d 1 3 2 , 1 3 6 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 0 ). L a sk o ’s d e lib e ra te15

in d if f e re n c e c laim h in g e s o n th e p re m ise th a t d e f e n d a n ts re f

u se d to tre a t h im f

o r h e p a tit is C forei ght een mont hs aft erhe arr i ved atFC I - Schuy l ki l l . A s the D i s tr i ctC our tpoi nt ed out , how ever , L as ko’ s m edi cal tr eatm ent , i ncl udi ng ext ens i ve eva l uat i ons as s es s i ng the a p p ro p ria te c o u rse o f

tre a tm e n t f

o r h is h e p a tit is C c o n d iti o n , co m m e n c e d im m e d iate ly upon ent er i ng the fa ci l i ty . D efe ndant s di d notappr ove Lasko t o begi n a i nt er fer on and ri bav i ri n regi m en u nti l he h ad u nd ergone ph y si cal and psy cho l og i cal exam i nati on s, e x ten siv e lab o ra to rytes tin g , an d se v e ra l co u n se lin g se ss io n s, b u t th is a p p ro a c h is e n tirely cons i s t entw i th t he B O P G ui del i nes forhepat i t i s C tr eatm ent . See J . A . 144- 46. L as ko has no tadd uced anyevidence thatD r. H end ers ho t– o r anyof the otherdefe nd ants – f a iled to tre a t L a sk o ’s c h ro n ic h e p a tit is C c o n d iti o n . T h e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t er r in g r a n t i n g s u mma r yj u d g me n to n La s k o ’ s Ei g h th Ame n d me n tc l a i m. T he D i s tr i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed the Fi r s tA m endmentr et al i at i on cl ai m beca us e Lasko fai l ed t o adduce evi dence thathi s fi l i ng of gr i evanc es and i ni t i at i on of l i t i gat i on pl ay ed a n yro le in th e d e c isio n to d isc o n tin u e h is m e d ica l trea tm e n t T o e sta b lish a p rim a f a c ie cas e of r et al i at i on i n vi ol at i on of the Fi r s tA m endment , L as ko m us ts how that“1) the con du cti n w hich he w as enga ged w as const i tuti on al l yprot ect ed; 2) he suf fered ‘adverse act i on ’ atthe h and s of pri son o ffi ci al s; and 3) hi s const i tuti on al l yprot ect ed co nd uct w as a s u b s t a n t i a l o rm o t i v a t i n g f a c t o ri n th e d e c i s i o n t o d i s c i p l i n e h i m . ” C a r t e rv . M c G r a d y, 292 F. 3d 152, 158 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) . I n thi s cas e, ther e w as no evi dence thatthe dec i s i ons t o di s cont i nue Lasko’ s m edi cat i on ort o fi l e i nci dentr eport s r egar di ng16

h is c o n d u c t w e re in f

lu e n c e d in a n yw a yb yre talia to rym o tiv e s. F u rth e rm o re , ev e n if L as ko w er e abl e t o s t at e a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e, “the pr i s on offi ci al s m ays t i l l pr evai l by pr ovi ng thattheyw oul d have made the s ame deci s i on abs entthe pr ot ect ed conduc tfor r eas ons r eas onabl yr el at ed t o a l egi t i m at e penol ogi cal i nt er es t . ” R aus erv. H orn, 242 F. 3d 330, 334 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . A s the D i s tr i ctC our tr ecogni zed, ther e w er e compel l i ng pen ologi cal i nter est s suppo rt i ng defe nd ants ’ act i on s i n thi s case. U nd er these circu m stan ce s, the D istri ct C o u rtd id n o t err i n g ran ti n g su m m aryjud g m en t. S ee C arter, 292 F. 3d at159 ( aff

i r m i ng s um m aryj udgm entbas ed on undi s put ed evi dence s uppor t i ng d e f e n d a n ts ’ p ro f

f e re d le g itim a te p e n o lo g ic a l in te re s ts ). L a sk o ’s f

in a l ar g u m e n t is th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d b yd ism iss in g th e d e f e n d a n ts w ho had no r es pons i bi l i tyforhi s m edi cal deci s i ons . L as ko cont ends thatother d e f e n d a n ts w e re a w a re o f

h is s e rio u s m e d ica l co n d iti o n b u t f a iled to a rra n g e f

o r a d e q u a te tre a tm e n t. Itis u n d isp u ted , h o w e v e r, th a t L a sk o re c e iv e d m e d ica l trea tm e n t f o r h is hepat i t i s C . T he onl yfac tual di s put e i s w hetherL as ko s houl d have be en s t art ed on i nt er fer on and r i bavi r i n s ooner . W e agr ee w i th the D i s tr i ctC our tthatthes e non- m edi cal defe ndant s coul d nothave pl ay ed a r ol e i n thi s deci s i on and w er e pr oper l ydi s m i s s ed fr om th e c a s e . V. F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, w e w ill a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.