## 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. 07

- 1219 F AB I AN S ANT I AGO, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v . J ONAT HANR . W ALLS, et a l., D efend a nts-A pp ellees

.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Illino is. No . 3:0 2-cv-00 78 4-JPG

—J. Phil Gilbert, Judge .
A RGUED M AY 29, 2009

— D ECIDED M AR CH 29, 2010

Befo re R IPPLE, R OV NERa nd S YKES, C ircu it Judges . R IPPLE, Cir cu i tJudg e . Fabi an Sant i ago w as a p ri sone r at th e M en ard Correc tional Ce n t e r i n Il li nois (“M en ard ”), w here he was as saul ted o n sev er alo c c as ions. H e fi l ed th i s p ro se ac tio n u n d er 42 U .S.C . § 19 83 ag ain st ce rt ain offi cer s a nd em plo yee s o fthe I l l i noi s Dep ar tm ent o f Corr e c t i o ns ( “ I DOC ” ) , a l l e g i ngtha tthe y h a d v i o l a t ed hi s const i tuti onal ri ghts by f ai l i ng to prot ect h im fro m oth er i nm ates, f ail ing to prov ide h im w ith m ed ical care2 N o. 07

- 1219

Because there is no const itutional or st atutory r ight to c ounsel 1 i n c i vi l l i t i gat i on ofthi s s or t, fede ra l c our t s do n ot h av e the author i t y t o a ppoi nt c oe rc i vel y a m em ber of the bar t o r epr es en t a litiga nt. H ow ev er, bec au se such rep resen tatio n is a p ro fe ssi onal obli gati on of m em bers ofthe bar, courts regular ly ar e ab l e t o fi n d a t t o r n e y s wi l l i n g t o t a k e o n th i s t a s k i n t he hig he st trad ition s of their p ro fessi on . T he refore , the se requ ests are, as a pract ic al m att er, ap pointm ents and are often referre d t o a s su ch

. S ee P ru ittv. M ote , 5 0 3 F
. 3 d 6 4 7, 6 5 3

- 5 4 ( 7 th Ci r. 2 0 0 7 ) (en b a n c), seeal so Tu c k erv . R a n d a ll, 94 8 F .2d 38 8 , 39 1 n .3 ( 7th Ci r. 19 91 ) ( “W e us e the te rm ‘ appoi nt ’ onl y as a s hor than d fo r t h is r ec ru itm en t p ro ce ss.” ). an d r et al i at i nga g ains t hi m f o r s peaking outa g ains t th e I D O C
. T h e c o u r td i s mi s s e d th r e e o fth e s e v e n c l a i ms th a tMr
. S a nt i a g o b r o u g h tf o r f a i l u r e t o s t a t e a c l a i m. Du ringdi sco ver y, M r. S anti ago r epeate dlyr equeste d tha tthe courtr e c r ui tc o un s e l, p ur s ua ntt o 2 8 U. S
. C. § 1 9 1 5 ( e)(1 ). H ow ev er , th e c ou rtd ec lin ed to d o s o u n til 1 th re e m onths bef or e t ri al, wh i ch w as m or e than twenty m on th s a fte r d isc ov er y h ad clo se d

. A fte r a t w o-d ay tria l, a j ury f ound in f avo r of the defe nd ants, and M r. Sa n tiag o bro ught t hi s a pp eal

. Because w e be l i eve thatthe dist ri ct cou rt erred in d ism is s in g C ou nt Four of M r. Santiago’s co m pl aintand a bus ed i ts di sc r et i o n b y no t r ec r ui ting cou ns el for M r. Santiago d uring discov ery, w e affirm i n partand re ver se i n partthe j u d gm ent o fthe dist ri ct cour t a nd r em and thi s ca se f orfurtherpro ceedi ngs.N o. 07

- 1219 3

M r. Santi ago w as lat er t ransferre d to the Pontiac Co rrec ti onal 2 Center i n 2003. The record do es n ot dis cl ose the fir stnam es ofs everal parti es 3 and w itness es i nvo lved in this cas e. T h e “en em y list” is a list m ain tain ed b y M en ard f or its 4 pri s one rs . E ac h pr i s one r l i s t s i ndi vi dual s with whom he sho u ld no t be p laced in a cell b eca u se of safety co nc ern s. S ee R .1 (4 /2 3 /2 0 0 1 F in a l S u m m a ry R ep o rt ). I B AC KGR OUND A . I ncidents att he M enar d Corr ect i onal Center

1. T h e fi gh t w it h H arr is On A pri l 17, 20 01, wh i l e M r. S anti ago was a pr i sone r at M enar d, h e fo ught w i th his cel l m ate , H aynes . A nother

2 3 i nm at e, I sa ac Har r i s, wi tn es se d the a l te r ca ti o n; dur i ng the fi g hth e y e l l e d fo r Mr
. S a nt i a g o “ no tt o t r i p” b e cause H arris had him

. R.1 ( 5/21/200 2 G rievanc e Re p ort). M r. S anti ago i nter prete d thi s v erbal i nter venti on a s a th reat of retaliati on. C orrectiona l O fficer (“C
. O
. ” ) G a ry Re dno ura nd C. O. But l erwi tn es se d thi s ex ch an g e but d id n ot re p or t th e th re at to th e pr iso n au th or i t i e s . A lth o ug h Mr. S an tiago f i l ed a g r i ev an ce r eg ar di ngthe alle ge d th re at by H ar ris , he cla i m s t h a t h e w as u n ab le to list H ar ris as a n e n em y be c au se h e k n ew H ar ris on ly 4 b y a n ick n am e, “Ic e.” I n a pr i so n di sc i pl i na r y p ro ce edingc o nc erni ng M r . S an ti ag o ’ s fi g htwi thHay ne s, M r . Sa nt i ag o was f o und gu ilty of figh tin g a n d w as p lac ed in s eg re ga tio n for s ix4 N o. 07

- 1219

The offi c er s i nvol ved i n thi s i nc i dentwer e l i s t ed i n the 5 or i gi na l c ompl a i nta s o ffi c e r s J oh n Doe 1 a nd J oh n Doe 2. Af t erthe par t i es det er m i ne d t hatJ ohnDoe 1 was Se rg ea nt Su em nich t, the rem ain ing un na m ed officer su b seq u e n tly w a s re fer re d to as “Jo h n D o e 1 .” m o nths

. The g r i ev an ce o ffi ce r ’ s r epo r t no ted th at, i n the fu tu re , M r. San tia go sh ou ld rep or t a n y e n em ies t o h is counsel orso t h at such i nd i vi du al s would notbe pla ced in h is c ell.

2. T h e H arr is assau lt On M ay1 5, 2 00 2, W ar denJ o na th anW al l s an d C ap ta in R am ag e a ss ign ed M r. San tia go to H ar ris ’s c el l. L at er th at d ay , w h i le M r. San tia go w as ea tin g lu n c h in th e c afete ri a, H ar ri s a tta cked hi m . M r. S anti ago al l ege s that, d u ringthe ensui ng fi ght, S er gea nt S uem ni cht was sta nd i ng appro xi m ate l y fi ftee n fee t aw ay but di d not i n t e r v e n e u n t i l Mr
. S a n t i a g o g o t u p , t u r n e d a r o u nd a nd at te m pte d t o hi t H ar r i s. At th att i m e, S er g ea ntS ue m ni ch t s pr a y e d Mr

. S a nt i a g o a nd Ha r r i s wi th pe pp e r s pr a y . C. O. J o hnDo e 1 the n t a c k l e d Mr

. Santi ag o t o the g r o un d, 5 ca us i nghi m “ ex tr eme pa i n. ” R. 28 a t 5. The c o m pl aint fur th era l l eg es tha t, whi l e es co r tingM r . S an ti ago to th e infi r m ar y, C. O. J o hn Doe 1 , “ br ut al l y y an k [ ed] a nd ri p[ped]” bac kwards Mr

. Sant i ago ’ s handcuff s, giv i n g h i m ab ra sio n s a n d ca u sin g h im fu rt h er p ain
. Id. M r. San tia go fu rt h er alleg es th at h e w as t r e a t ed in t h is m anner by the offi cer s eve n though he offer ed no res i stance.N o. 07

- 1219 5

T he par t i es ag re e thatthe gr i eva nc e di d notc ontain 6 Castr o’ s nam e. A t or al argum ent, the def endan ts s tat ed th at W arden 7 W al l s ’ s offi c e rej ec t ed the e m er ge nc y gr i eva nc e i n wri t i ng. A ccor ding to M r. Santi ago ’ s com pla i nt, w hen h e r eached th e i nfirm ary, Dr
. J o hn Doe r efus ed to t r ea t hi m . Dr
. J o hn Doe i nstea d tol d C

. O. K ey s to m ove M r. S anti ago to a se gr eg at ion u n it. C .O . K ey s fi r s t p lac ed M r. San tia go in a h o l d i n g c e l l wi th i n v i e w o f a s u r v e i l l a n c e c a me r a an d then l ate r m ove d him to se gr ega ti on. M r. S anti ago st ate s that he suffer ed fro m m i gr ai ne head aches and fa ci al pai n and that he had tr oubl e e ati ng.

3. Th e Ca stro ass au lt N ot l ong afterthe H ar ri s a ssa ult, M r. S anti ago was m ove d i nto a ce ll w i th Castr o, wh o, M r. S anti ago al l ege s, had a hi sto ryo fas sault i ng hi s ce l l m ate s. M r. S anti ago fi l ed an em er gencygr i evance with W ar den W al l s, r equesti ng tha t hi s ce l l m ate be pla ced on hi s e nem y l i st an d s ee k i ngr el o ca ti o n t o a vo i d a phy si ca l c o nfr o nt ati o n. 6 The re quest speci fi cal l y i nfo rm ed the w ar den that M r. S an tia go bel i eve d ther e was a consci ous pr acti ce o n the par t o fthe pri son guar d s to pla ce hi m with inm ate s w i th wh om he was bo und to h ave a c onfro ntati on that w oul d r e s ul ti n hi s b e i ngs e ntt o s e g r e g a t i o n. War den W al l s t oo k no act i on. Fo ur days l ate r, M r. S anti ago was 7 as sa ul te d s eve r ely b y Ca st r o a nd s us ta i ne d c ut s, s wel l i ng and brui ses to hi s f ace

— “t h e wal l s, fl oo r and bed fullo f6 N o. 07

- 1219

m y b l o o d. ” R. 1 at5
. M r . S an ti ag o all eges th at, a fte r he w as ass aul ted, C. O. J i nes, C. O. Cox and other s refused to pro v i de h i m wi th med i c a l t r e a t men t
. He fur the r al l ege s that the guar ds pla ced h im in anothercel lwith a pr i so ne r who ha d a ss au l te d a gua r d. The c o m pl aint als o a lleg es th at p ris o n gu ar d s a tt em p te d to p lac e h im i n a y ar d w i th H ar ri s in or der t o ex p os e h i m to further att ack.

B . L itiga tion in th e D is tric t C ou rt 1. D is c ov ery I n J uly20 03 , M r. S anti ago fi l ed thi s pro se se cti on 1 983 ac ti o n i n the S o ut her n Di st r i cto fI l l i no i s ag ains t th e defe nd ants. The di str i ct c ourtdi vi ded the am ended com pla i nt i nto seve n counts: Count One ag ai nst W ar den W al l s, C. O. Ram age and C. O. K eys f orf ai l i ng to pro tect M r. S anti ago fro m the H ar ri s a ssa ult; Count Tw o aga i nst Serg ea n t Suem ni cht and C. O. J ohn Doe 1 f orusi ng exce ssi v e f o r c e f o l l o wi ngthe Ha r r i s a s s a ul t ; Co un tT hree aga i nst C. O. K eys f orusin g ex cess i ve f or ce a gai nst M r. Sant i ago and a gai nst Dr. J ohn Doe f or f ai l in g to provi de m edi calcar e f ol l owing the Harri s a ssa ult; Count Fourag ai nst W ar den W al l s f orf ail i ng to pro tect M r. S anti ago fro m Castr o; Coun t Five ag ai nst W ar den W alls for fa ilin g t o p ro te c t M r. San tia go by m ov in g h im i nto the s am e ce l l bl ockas H ar ri s a fterM r. S an tia go was re l eas ed fr om se gr ega ti on; Count S i x aga i nst C. O. J i nes and C. O. Cox f or f ai l i ng to provi de M r. Sant i ago w i th m edi ca l t r eatm entf o l l o wi ngthe Ca st r o a ss au l t; a nd Count Sev en ag ai nst W ar den W al l s a nd C. O. K eys f orN o. 07

- 1219 7

re tal i ati ng ag ai nst M r. S anti ago f orspeak in g ou t a gai nst I DO C em plo yee s. R. 1; R. 28. Du ri ng the co urse of lit i gat i on, the cour t di sm i sse d Cou nt s One , Two an d F o urwi th o utpr ej udi ce f o r f ai l i ng to st at e a cla im u p on w h ich relie f co u ld be gra n te d

. See Fe d . R. C iv. P . 12(b )(6) . Th e c ou rtals o d ism iss ed C ap ta in Ra mag e , S e r g e a ntS ue mni c ht, C
. O. R e dn o ura nd C. O. Bu tl erfro m t h e case because theywere not nam ed as defe nd ants i n the survi vi ng cl ai m s. I n 200 4 a nd 20 05, M r. S anti ago fi l ed m oti on s in an at te m pt to c o nduc t di sc o ve r y . On Augus t 9 , 2 00 4, he sou gh t t o com p el the d efend an ts to d isclose discove ry m aterials. M r. Santiago obse rved that W ard en W all s’s and C

. O. Ke y s ’ s r e s po ns e c o nt a i ne d l i t t l e o fthe ma t e r i al that he re quested m or e than f our m onths pri or . Th ey cl ai m ed th atthe i den titi es o fthe wi tn es se s to the H ar r i s an d Ca st ro as sa ul ts wer e “n o t r el ev an t” t o the ca se , a nd the y i ns tr uct ed M r . Sa nti ag o t o o bt ain the in for m at ion th at h e ne ed ed th ro u gh th e I D O C . R.8 5, E x . A at 2. M r. S anti ago had m ai nt ained thatco m m unica ti on w ith I DOC woul d no t be us efulwi th o utfi r stl ea r ni ng the i de nt i t i e s o fthe wi tne s s e s , a nd h e no t e d tha tI DOC w oul d onl y a l l ow inm ates t o com m unica te w i th r el ati ves. On A ugust 20, the dist ri ct c ourtco ncl ud ed that M r. Santi ago ’ s m oti on w as prem atur e because he had not m ade a goo d

- f ai th eff or t t o re sol ve hi s di spute after receiving obj ection s and a respon se to his d isc o very re quest. M r. S anti ago unsuccess full y filed an obj ecti on to the r uling. On Oc tobe r 2 8, M r . S an ti ag o fil ed a “mot i o n r eque st i ng to depose a l l defendants, witnes ses . ” R. 100. H i s m oti on8 N o. 07

- 1219

w as denie d on the basi s th at h e di d not nee d l eave to depose the defe nd ants. M r. Sant i ago fi l ed a m ot ion for sancti ons on F ebr uary23 , 20 05, wh i ch he l ate r supp l em ented, st ati ng tha t the defen d an ts had fa i l ed to co m pl y wi th hi s di sc o ve r y r eque st s. On M ay 23, the di st r i ctc o ur t d en i ed hi s m o ti o n f o r s an ct i o ns , fi ndi ng th at M r. S anti ago had not m ade a goo d-f ai th eff or t t o re sol ve the di spute be cause he had f ai l ed to co nfe r w i th the defendants regardi ng the i r obj ecti ons and res ponses to hi s di sco ver y r equests
. A t the cl ose of disc ove ry, M r. S anti ago had not succe ede d i n i den ti fy i ng C. O. J o hn Doe 1, Dr
. J o hn Doe o r a ny w i tness es to the Harr i s a nd Castro ass aul ts. H e had not tak en any deposi ti ons or ser ved an y inter ro gat or i es. M r. S anti ago was al so unabl e t o obt ai n any of the pri son surve i l l ance vi deos.

2. Recruit m ent ofco un sel Befo re and duri ng di sc ove ry, M r. S anti ago fi l ed sev er al m ot ion s s ee kin g t h e re c ru itm en t o f co u n se l. O n Aug us t 28 , 2 00 3, the c o ur t den i ed M r . S an ti ag o ’s fi r sts uchmot i o n: Pl a i nt i ffh a s n o tde mon s t r a t e d tha th e h a s ma de re aso nabl e a tte m pts to r eta i n counseland has not shown th at he was e ffecti vel y pr ecl ud ed fro m m akin g a dili gen t eff ort i n th is r egard

. H ow ever, the f acts and i ssues i n thi s ca se ar e not com ple x a nd i ta pp e a r s a tthi s t i me tha tp l a i nt i ffi s ab l e to det er m i ne the f ac ts a nd pr es en t hi s ca se witho utN o. 07

- 1219 9

as sis ta n c e fro m co u n se l. Fin ally , p lain tiff’s likelihood o f s u c cess o n the m er i ts i s, atthi s poi nt, questi onabl e. R
. 15 at 2 (f ootn ote om itted ). I n Feb ruar y 2 004 , M r. S anti ago fi l ed a s eco nd m oti on se ek in g t h e re c ru itm en t o f co u n se l. See R. 28. He ma i ntai ned th at h e n ee d ed as sis ta n c e o b ta in in g a n d r ev iew in g e videnc e i ncl ud i ng r epor ts, gr i evance s, m edi caldocum ents an d c amer a f oo ta g e. M r . S an ti ag o a l so s ta te d tha t he needed assi sta nce co ntacting and i nter vi ew i ng se ver al w i tness es. I n A p ril, M r. S anti ago fi l ed a thi rd m oti on f orthe re cr ui tmento fc o uns el, whi chr es ta te d hi s pr ev i o us a ss er ti o ns . OnMay7, the c o ur tde ni e d tha tmo t i o n b e c ause M r. S an tia go had not m ade “a ny at tem pt to o btain re presenta tio n o n a c onti ngency fee orpro bo no ba si s, ” no r ha d he sh o wn th at he was unabl e to m ak e su ch aneff or t. R. 53. On M ay 1 7, 2 0 0 4 , Mr
. S a nt i a g o fi l e d a f o ur th r e qu e st for th e re c ru itm en t o f co u n se l, in w h ich h e re ite ra te d h is e a r l i e r s t a t e me n t s r e g a r d i n gh i s p r o b l e ms c o n d u c ti ng disc ove ry, not ed tha t h e needed hel p l oca ti ng and deposi ng w i tness es and a rgued that the pri so n restri cted hi s abi lity t o kee p l ega l docum ents i n hi s ce l l

. H e a tta ch ed si x l et te r s fr o m var i o us l aw fi r m s an d o r g an i za ti o ns decl i ni ng to repres ent him

. The co urt never thel ess deni ed th i s m o ti o n, fi ndi ng th at M r . S an ti ag o was com pet en t to re prese nt hi m sel fthr ough t h e pr etr i alst age bec ause h e c ou ld rea d an d w ri t e , u n d er st an d th e n at u re of h is cl ai m s a nd co m p re hend and f ol l ow rul es ofpro cedure.10 N o. 07

- 1219 T h e c o u r tfu r th e r n o t e d th a tM r . S a n t i a g o ’ s c l a i ms w er e no t co m ple x, and that he had acce ss to tool s that w oul d hel p him deter m ine wh i ch l aw s a nd r ule s g o ver ne d hi s ca se , g athe r a nd e xc ha ng e i nf o r m at i o n, an d c o mmun i c a t e wi th th e c o u r ta n d wi th th e de f en dants’ co unsel

. R. 72 at 2. H owever, i t observe d that M r. S anti ago ’ s s ki l l s m i ght no t be adequate for h i m to re prese nt hi m sel fattr i al

. Consequentl y, t h e c ourtdi sm i sse d M r. S anti ago ’ s m oti on without p rej ud i ce with re ga rd to th e re c ru itm en t o f co u n se l for tr ial. Id. On Septem ber29 , 20 06

— tw enty m onths after t h e cl ose of discovery

— the co ur t r ec o ns i der ed i ts pr ev i o us r ul i ng su a spo nt e an d g r an te d M r . S an ti ag o ’ s m o ti o n f o r the re crui tm ent o fco unsel

. The o rd er st ate d expli ci tl y that th e a p p oin tm en t w as “o n ly f o r t h e p u rp os es of tr ial.” R. 173. M r. Santi ago ’ s a tto rneym ade hi s fi rs t a pp ear ance o n De cem ber 5, 2 00 6, l es s th ant wo months b efo r e th e st ar t o f tria l.

3. Tr i al M r. S an tia go’s two- day tr i albeg an o n J anuary29 , 20 07. M r. S anti ago ’ s o nl y w i tness es w er e hi m sel fand H ar ri s. A t th e c los e o fhi s ca se, se ver alo fthe defe nd ants m ove d f o r j udg m en t as a matt ero fl aw. The c o ur t r es er ve d the m at te r. A fte r tr ial, th e d efe n d an ts ren ew ed th eir m oti on; the cour t g ra nted the m oti on with r ega rd to W ar denW al l s on Co untF i ve a nd C. O. Key s o n Co unt S ev en . On J an ua r y 3 0, the j ury r etur ne d a v er di ctf o r the re m ai ni ng defendants o n al l co unts.N o. 07

- 1219 11 II DI S C US S I ON A. M r. Santiago asks that w e review the d istri ct cou rt’s deci si on t o dism i ss thre e o fthe counts i n hi s co m pla i nt at th e in itia l s c r e e n in g p h as e. See 2 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 9 1 5 A. We re vie w su c h d ism iss als d e n ov o, Westefer v. Sny der, 42 2 F
. 3 d 5 7 0 , 5 74 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 5 ) , a n d a p p l y th e s a me sta nd ar d u se d fo r ev alu at in g d ism iss als und er Rul e 12 ( b) ( 6) , “ ta k i nga l l wel l

- plead ed al l eg at i o ns o fthe com pla i nt as true a nd vi ew i ng the m i n the l i ght m ost f avo rabl e t o the pl ai nti ff, ” Zi mm e r man v. Tr i b ble, 226 F. 3d 568, 571 (7th C ir. 2000).

1 . C o untOne M r. San tia go su b m its th at th e d ist ric t c o u rterr ed in co nc l ud i ng tha t a men de d Co un t On e f a i l e d t o s t a t e a cl ai m ag ai nst C. O. Redn our and C

. O . B utl erf orf ai l ure to prot ect M r. S anti ago i n connect i on with the H ar ri s a ssaul t. M r. S anti ago o bser ves t hat, i n or der t o sta te a sect i on 1 983 cl ai m ag ai nst pr i son offi c i al s f orf ai l ure to prot ect, he m ust e stabl i sh: ( 1) thath e w as “i ncarc er ate d unde r c o ndi ti o ns po singa s ubs ta nt i alr isk ofs er i o us harm ” a nd ( 2) thatthe defe nd ants acte d w i th “del iber ate in d iffer en c e” to h is he alt h o r s a fet y. Far m e rv. Br e nna n , 511 U
. S. 825, 834 (1994 ). M r. S anti ago contends thatH ar ri s’ s threa t co nsti tuted a s u b st an t i a l r i s k of h ar m . See Weiss v. C o o ley, 23 0 F
. 3d12 N o. 07

- 1219

T h e I l l i n o i s At t o r n e y Ge n e r a l r e p r e s e n t s W a r de n W a l l s , C
. O. 8 K eys, C. O
. J ines and C

. O
. Cox. Although t h e Il li nois Attorney G en er a l d oe s no t ha v e an attor ne y -client relatio nsh ip w ith the r em aini ng de f en dant s , s he ha s s t ru c t ur ed h erar gum en t on b eh alf of all of the d efend an ts. 1027, 10 30, 10 32 ( 7th Ci r. 20 00) ( n ot in g that a pri sone r f aced an obj ecti ve ri sk ofse ri ous inj ury because o f i nma t e thr e a t s a nd a t t a c k s )
. He ma i nt a i ns tha tC. O. Redn our and C

. O. Bu tl erknew ofthis threatand dis re gar ded i t, ther eby acting with del iber ate i nd iffer ence to h i s h e a l th a n d s a fe t y . Mr
. S a n t i a g o c l a i ms th a tth e t wo o ffi c e r s r e fu s e d t o r e p o r t H a r r i s ’ s th r e a t s a g a i n s th i m, w h ich w ou l d h av e a llow ed H ar ris to be p lac ed on h is enem y l i st. The defe nd ants m ai ntai n that, gi ven th e v aguenes s o f Ha r r i s ’ s thr e a t, C. O. R e dn o urand C. O. Bu t l e r we r e p r o per l y di sm i sse d fr om the l aw sui t be cau se they did not sh ow d elib er at e in d iffer en c e t o M r. San tia go ’s s afe ty
. In 8 thei r vi ew , once M r. Santi ago w as disc i pli ned and m ove d in to se gr eg at ion , th e p os sib ility of an at t a c k by H ar ris w as re m ote
. They al so cl ai m that M r. Sant i ago coul d have pu t Harr i s o n hi s en em y l i st w i thout thei r ass i sta nce bec au se iden tifying H arr is by his nickn am e w as su ff i ci e ntt o g e tHa r r i s o n M r . S a nt i a g o ’ s e ne my l i s t
. T he y furthernot e that they ha d no way ofk now i ng tha t M r. San tia go w ou ld lat er be tra n s f e r r e d to th e s am e c ell as H ar ri s. W e h av e h eld th at failu re to p ro vid e p ro te c tio n co n st itutes an Ei ghth A m endm ent v i ol ati on o nl y i fdel iber ateN o. 07

- 1219 13 ind ifferenc e by p rison offici als to a p risoner’s w elf are “e ffec tiv ely co n d on es th e at ta c k b y a llow in g it t o h ap p en .” Le wis v. Ri ch ar ds , 10 7 F
. 3d 549, 55 3 ( 7th Ci r. 1997) ( ci tat i on and qu ot at ion m ar ks om i tte d). To s ustai n hi s Ei ghth A m endm ent c l aim o n Count One, M r. S anti ago had to al l ege f acts suffi ci ent t o show “that the defen d ants h ad ac tu al k n ow led ge of an im p en d in g h ar m ea sily preve ntabl e, so thata consc ious, cul pabl e r efusalto p reven t the harm can be inferred from the d efend an t’s f ai l ure to preve nt i t. ” Id. ( ci tat i on a nd quotat i on m ar ks om itted ). W e do not bel i eve thatM r. S anti ago has m ad e s uch an a l l e g a t i o n. S pec i fi c a l l y, h e h a s f a i l e d t o a l l e g e tha tC. O. Re dno ura nd C. O. But l erha d a ny kno wl edg e o fthe i mp e n d i n gh a r m. N o t a b l y, th e a l l e g a t i o n s o fth e c o mpl a i ntma k e c l e a r th a tC. O. Re dn o urf i l e d a r e po r tr e g a r di ng the fi ght b etween M r. S anti ago and H aynes and that M r. S anti ago co nsequentl y was f oun d g u i l ty and m ove d i nto so l i tar y c onfi nem ent forsi x m onths. Thi s m ove to sol i tar y c onfi nem ent pr ote cte d M r. S anti ago fro m im p en d in g h ar m . In d ee d , H ar ris d id n otas sa u lt M r . S a nt i a g o u nt i l mo r e tha n a year a ft e r h e h a d ma de th e th r ea t. Co ns eque nt l y, we m us t co nc l ude tha t th e dist ri ct c ourtco rr ectl y di sm i sse d C ount One.

2 . C o u n tT wo Count Tw o f ocuses o n H ar ri s’ s a ssa ult

. M r. S anti ago co nt en ds th athe has state d a c l ai m a g ains t S er g ea nt Suem ni cht and C. O. J ohn Doe 1 f orexce ssi ve f or ce b ecause thei r acti ons const i tuted the wanton and unj usti fi ed14 N o. 07

- 1219 i nfl i cti on o funnecess ar y pain a gai nst a subm i ssi ve i nm ate and beca use s uch acti on co nsti tutes the use of m al i ci ous for ce, as opposed to a goo d-f ai th eff or t t o m ain ta in or re st or e d isc ip lin e. Se eH uds on v. M cM i l l i an , 50 3 U
. S. 1, 7 ( 1992 )
. H e m ai ntai ns thatthe f act that f or c e was used i n the conte xt o fan inm ate alt er c ati on does not defe at hi s cl ai m because he “offer [ ed] no res i sta nce to [ the] sta ffduri ng i nm ate H ar ri s[ ’ s] as saul t. ” R. 28 at 5. T h e d efe n d an ts su b m it t h at th e d ist ric t c ou rtp ro p er ly dism i sse d C oun t Tw o. They obser ve that M r. S anti ago admi tt ed i n h i s g r i ev an ce r epo r t th atS er g ea ntS ue m ni ch t d id n otu se m ac e u n til M r. San tia go h it H ar ris
. See R .1 (5/ 21 /2 00 2 G rie va n c e R ep or t). T h ey c o n te n d th at th eir re acti on t o the fi ght w as n ot exces si ve f or ce under H uds on , 50 3 U.S
. at7. I n H uds on , the Suprem e Cour t h eld that, wh en pri son offici al s a re acc used ofusi ng exce ssi ve f or ce, the key i nquir y i s “ w hetherf or ce was appl i ed i n a g oo d-f ai th e f f or t t o m ain ta in or re st or e d isc ip lin e, or m alic iou sly and s adis ti cal l y t o cause harm

. ” Id. at7
. To de te r m i ne w hetherf or ce was appl i ed i n go od f ai th, we consi der seve ra l f acto rs , “i ncl ud i ng the need f orthe appli catio n of the for c e, the a m ount o ff or ce a pp l i ed, the thre at an offi cerr eas onabl y per cei ve d , t he eff or t m ade to te m per th e s e v e r i t y o f th e f o r c e u s e d , a n d th e e x t e n t o ft he i nj ury that f or ce c au sed to an inm ate
. ” Fi l l m or ev. Page, 35 8 F .3d 49 6, 50 4 (7 th C ir. 20 04 ). W e h av e n ot ed , in the c onte xt o fsur vi vi ng sum m ar y j ud gm ent, that “th e prison er m us t hav e ev id e n c e tha t ‘w il l su p p ort a r el i abl e infe re nce o fwantonness in the i nfl i cti onN o. 07

- 1219 15 ofpai n. ’ ” Id. ( ci ti ng Whit ley v . Alb ers , 47 5 U.S
. 31 2, 32 2 (1986)). The al l ega ti ons i n M r. S anti ago ’ s co m pla i nt wil l not supp or t a n i nfe re nce o fexce ssi ve force o n the part of Sergea ntS ue m ni ch t an d C. O. J o hn Doe 1
. M r . S an ti ag o ’s gr iev an c e rep or t est ab lish es th at b ot h h e an d H ar ris w er e fi ghti ng and t here f or e s up port s the defendants’ posi ti on th at t here was a nee d fo r the o ffi cer s t o use f or ce. W e have h eld thatthe use o fm ace i s a pp ro pri ate “whe n r ea so nabl y ne ce ss ary . . . t o s ubdu e r ec al ci tr an t pri sone rs . ” So to v. D ick ey, 744 F.2d 126 0, 1270 ( 7th Cir. 1984 ) ( ci tat i ons and quotati on m ar ks om itt ed ) ( al ter ati o n i n o r i g i na l )
. Gi ve n the thr ea t to the s afety o fthe offi cer s a nd the thre at to the m ain tenance o fgo od or der an d d i s c i p l i n e i n th e i n s t i t u t i o n, th e u s e o f ma ce a nd ha nd cu ff s can not b e cha racterized as de liberat e ind if

fer ence. The co m pla i nt does notal l ege a d eq uatel y that Se rg ea n t Su em n ich t a n d C .O . J o h n D oe 1 ac te d “m alici o us l y a nd s adi st i ca l l y f o r the v er ypur po se o fc au sing harm

. ” Fa rm er, 51 1 U.S
. at83 5 ( ci tat i on a nd quot ati on m ar ks om itt ed ). T h e d ist ric t c ou rtth er efo re co rre c tly dism i sse d thi s co unt ofthe com pla i nt.

3 . C o untF o ur Count Fo ur a lleg ed that W ar den W al l s had f ai l ed to prot ect M r. S anti ago fro m the Castr o ass aul t. The Ei g hth Am en dm en t’ s pr o hibi ti o n a g ains t cr ue l a nd unu sualpunishm ent r equi re s that pr i son offi ci al s “ tak e r ea sonab l e m ea su r es t o g ua r an te e th e sa fety o fthe i n-16 N o. 07

- 1219

m ate s. ” Fa rm er, 51 1 U.S
. at83 2 ( ci tat i on a nd quotat i on m ar ks om i tte d). Theref or e, thos e charg ed w i th th e h igh re sponsibi l i ty ofr unning pr i sons ar e requi re d, as a m att er of constitu tionally im p osed du ty, to “p rotect p risoners fro m vi ol ence at the hands o fo therpri sone rs . ” Id

. at83 3 ( ci tat i on a nd quotat i on m ar ks om i tte d). M r. S antiag o subm i ts that Castr o had a h i sto ryo fas saul ti ng ce l l m ate s pri orto M r. Santi ago ’ s bei ng house d w i th Castr o and l ate r c au se d M r. S an tia go se riou s inj u ry . See Brown v. Budz , 39 8 F
. 3d 90 4, 9 10 (7 thCi r . 2 00 5) ( no tingtha t to s at i sfy the obj ective p rong of a f ail ure to protec t claim , “a plaintiff m ust a l l ege noto nl y tha t h e or she e xperi enced, o r w as exposed to , a ser i ous har m , but al so that t h er e was a su bs ta nt i alr i skb efo r eh an d tha t se r i o us ha r m might ac tu ally oc c u r” ). H e a lso alleg e s t h at st aff d elib er at ely housed hi m w i th Castr o i n or der to provo ke a con fro n tati on. I nd eed, he m ai ntai ns t h at thi s ho usi ng deci si on w as part ofa pattern ofthe guar ds hou sing hi m with i nm ate s who w oul d c au se such a confro ntati on a nd that hi s g ri evance to the w ar den express l y put the warden on not i ce o fthatprac ti ce. M r. S anti ago subm i ts that W ar den W al l s knew o r shoul d have know n t hat Cast ro had a hi sto ryo f ass aul ti ng hi s ce l l m ate s a nd thatW ar den W al l s di sr egar ded thatr i sk. See i d. at 914 (holdin g tha t plaintiff’s al l ega ti on about w hat pr i son offi ci al s knew a bout a dangero us pri sone r i s suffi ci ent to survi ve dism i ssa l u n d er R u l e 12 (b )(6) ). H e n ot es th at, fou r d ay s p rior to h is ass aul t, he ha d fi l ed an em er gency gr i evance with W ar d en W alls , req u es tin g t h at C as tr o b e p lac ed on h is enem y l ist and that a “ cel l change be conducted toN o. 07

- 1219 17 preve nt a physi cal confro ntati on. ” R. 28 at 5- 6. M r. S anti ago conte nd s that W ar den W al l s disr ega rded the ri sk that C a s t r o p o s e d b y f a i l i n gt o g r a n tMr
. S a n t i a g o a n i mm edi ate cel l change

. The W ar den subm i ts that M r. S anti ago di d not a l l ege th atW ar denW al l s ac tu al l y kne w ofCa st r o ’ s vi o l en t h i s t o r y a tth e t i me th a th e w a s a t t a c k e d

. H e c l a i ms that the c om pla i nt o nly alleg es that he had a du ty to i nvest i gat e Cast ro f ol l owin g re cei pt ofthe gr i evance . H e al so no te s th atM r . S an ti ag o di d no t r eque sttha t he co nduc t aninv es ti g at i o n. The W ar dens ta te s th atthe gr i evance di d not i denti fy Cast ro by nam e a nd di d not sugg es t that M r. S anti ago had any speci fi c i nfo rm ati on i nd i cating tha t he posed a t h re at. The W ar den obse rv es th a th i s d e s i g n e e s s i g n ed t he g r i e v a n c e f o l l o w- u p . He furthero bser ves that ther e i s no r espondeat su p eri or l i abi l i ty und erse cti on 1 983. This cl ai m sho uld nothave bee n dis m iss ed . To sta te a c laim for f ai l ure to prot ect, M r. S anti ago needed to al l eg e th at( 1) he was i ncarc er at ed unde r c o ndi ti o ns posi ng a substa nti alr i sk ofse ri ous har m and ( 2) that W ar den W al l s a cted with del iber ate i nd i ffer ence to that r isk

. See Fa rm er, 5 1 1 U. S
. a t8 3 4
. Mr
. S a n t i a g o me tthe fi r str equi r ement bec au se he a l l eg ed th athe was b eing housed w i th i nm ate s who, bec au se ofthei r behavi or hi st o r y, po se d a s i g ni fi ca ntr i sko fc o nfr o nt at i o n a nd vi ol ence. H e a l so alle ge d thathi s pre sent pla cem ent was par t o fa pr ac ti ce o fho us i nghi m i n ex p losi ve s i tu at i o ns thatwo ul d r e s ul ti n hi s c o nt i nu e d p l a c e men ti n s e g r ega tio n . S e eBrown , 3 98 F. 3d at9 10
. W i thr eg ar d t o the18 N o. 07

- 1219

seco nd r equi re m ent, M r. S an ti ago al l ege d that he subm i tt ed a g r i ev an ce to W ar den W al l s’ s o ffi ce , a sk i ngtha t th e i nm ate wi th who m he wa s b e i ngh o us e d b e p l a c e d o n hi s en emy l i sta nd tha t he b e g i ven a c el l c ha ng e. The grievanc e claim ed that the p riso n o ff ic ia ls w ere f ol low in g a pra cti ce o fpl aci ng hi m i n cel l s with i nm ate s wi th wh o m th e r e wa s b o u n d t o b e a co n f r o n t a t i o n . He furtheral l ege d that the W ar den “knew orsho uld have kn ow n ” t h at C as t r o w as d an ge ro u s. W e t h in k t h at th is al l ega ti on i s s uffi ci ent, atthe ple adingst age , to sta te a c laim th at W a rd en W alls ac tu ally kn ew or c on sc iou sly turned a bl i nd ey e toward an ob vi ous r i sk. M r. S anti ago can n ot know f orcer tai n w hat W ar den W al l s knew w ithou t d iscovery. C ons eq ue nt ly, the d istri ct cou rt shoul d not hav e di sm i sse d thi s co unt ofthe com pla i nt. T he dissen t sug gests tw o infi rm iti es w ith M r. Santiago’s pro se com pla i nt. Fi rs t, i t would r equi re a m uch gr eat er l e v e l o fs pe c i fi c i t y i n b o th the c o mpl a i nta nd i n the a ppend ed gr iev an ce for m . W i th r espectto the gr i evance , nei therthi s co urt norany other A m er i can co urt has i m posed the re quir em ents off act orco de ple adingo n such a docum ent. The purpos e of a gr i evance i s, qui te sim p ly, to advi se pri son m anage m ent o fa si tuati on that co ul d ha r m the g o o d o r dera nd d iscipl i ne o fthe i ns ti tu
ti on s o that re m edi alst eps ca n be tak en b y the o ffi cer w ho i s re sp onsibl e f orsuch r em edi es. H er e, the w ar den w as inform ed that pers onn el und er h is c om m an d w ere unde r m i ni ngthe g o o d o r dera nd di sc i pl i ne o f th e i ns ti tu
tio n by pla ci ng M r. S anti ago i n si tuati ons w here vi ol ence w as i ne v i t a b l e . Al tho ugh the di s s e nta pp a r e nt l y t a kes th e c on tr ar y v iew , w e b elie ve th at an y w ar d e n w or th h isN o. 07

- 1219 19

o r he r s al t woul d c o ns i ders ucha n a l l eg at i o n s uffi ci en t to co m m en ce an ag g r es si ve i nv es ti g at i o n. M o stw ar den s w ou ld n otfail to m ee t t h e ir re sp on sib ilitie s s im p ly because the com pla i ni ng pri soner, wh i l e a l l eging r eta l i ati on, f ailed to nam e nam es. The m ai ntai ni ng o fpri son disc i pli ne does notdepend o n pris oner s nam i ng nam es. T o th e e x t e n tth a tt h e d i s s e n ti s a s s e r t i n gth a tth e c o mpl ainti ts el fl ac k ed su ffi ci en t specifi ci ty, i t i s as k i ng for a r e tu rn to th e d ay s b efo re th e Su p re m e C ou rtelim in ated that i m perm i ssibl e gl oss on the Feder al Rules in Leathe r m an v. Tar r antCounty Narc ot i cs Int e l l ige nc ean d C o ordination U nit, 507 U
. S. 163 ( 1993 )
. I t i s cl ear th at th is co m pl aintconform s t o the s ta nda r ds se t o utb y the S upr eme Cou r t i n B el l Atlanti c Corp. v. Tw om bly, 550 U
. S. 54 4 ( 2 0 0 7 ) a nd Ash crof

tv. Iq b al , ___ U
. S. ___, 129 S. C t. 1937 ( 2009 ). S e e gen erally Ha ines v . Kern er, 40 4 U.S
. 51 9 ( 1972 ) (per cu riam ). The dis sent’ s s eco nd r eas on f orj usti fyi ng the d ism issal o fthe c om pl ainti s no t ba se d o n a ny l eg alpr i nc i pl e but on the a s s umpt i o n tha t s ummar y j ud g men t s ho ul d b e g r an te d b ec au se , a t tr i al, M r . S an ti ag o a dm itte d tha t he thre w the fi rs t punch w hen the i nevitabl e a l ter cati on w i th Castr o oc curr ed. Thi s i s a n ar gum ent without l ega l su bsta nc e. A s the dissen t sug gests , i t i s p ossible f or a l i ti gant to i nd uce hi s o w n defe at by ass er ti ng i n an affi davi t f acts that negate hi s case . H er e, how eve r, M r. San ti ago did nothi ng o fthe sor t. I t i s i m port an t to re m em berthat h i s a l l ega ti on i n thi s ca se i s a n Eighth A m endm ent claim th atthe war denwas de l ibe r at ely i ndi ffer en t bype r m i tt i ng h is e m p loy ee s t o c re at e, an d by co n tin u in g b y h is ow n in actio n, a si tuati on that inevi tabl y would l ead to confro ntati on a nd vi ol ence. S tat ed bl untl y, M r. S anti ago20 N o. 07

- 1219 i s a l l eging tha t he w as setup. I de n tit y o fthe fi rs t t o thro w a p u n c h certa i nl y doe s no t neg ate the gr avam en o fM r. S anti ago ’ s co m plain t th at the warden w as de l ib e r a t e l y i nd i ffe r e nt
. I t wa s the wa r de n’ s j ob to ensu re that no fi g hte ve r t o o kpl ac e. Acco r di ngt o the al l eg ations ofthe c o m pl aint, hi s o ffi ce r s wer e pr o vo k i ng such an a l ter cati on, and he di d noth in g to sto p i t. T h at alleg at ion is su fficie n t t o s u rv ive d ism iss al.

B. M r. S a n t iago nex t ch all en ges th e d istri ct cou rt’s f ail ure to re crui t counselduri ng the di sco ver y phase o fthi s ca se. W e r evi ew i ts deci si on under 2 8 U.S
. C. § 1 915( e) ( 1) f or an ab u se of d isc re tio n . G reen o v . D a ley, 41 4 F
. 3d 645, 65 8 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05)
. Our r evi ew i s l i m i ted to the ev i dence avai l a b l e a t the t i me tha t the mot i o n wa s de ni e d, tha t i s, on Ju ly 8 , 200 4. P ru it t v. M ote, 503 F.3d 647, 659 (7th C ir. 2007 ) (en ban c).

1. M r. S an ti ago subm i ts that the c ourtsho uld have r ec ru ite d co u n se l for h i m d u rin g d isc ov er y b ec au se h is c l a i ms w e r e c o mp l e x. H e o b s e r v e s th a th i s c l a i ms i nv o l ve d Fi r sta nd Ei g hth Am en dm en t i ss ue s, i nc l udi ng m ultiple claim s of d eliberat e ind ifferenc e by p r is on sta ff

. M r. Santiago con ten d s tha t his sub m issi o n s t o the cou rt dem onst ra ted t hat he w as i ncapabl e o fl i ti gat i ng the se cl ai m s wi th o uta ss i st ance. H e fur th ermai nt ains tha t he was unabl e to g athe r ev i den ce o r to ta k e d ep osi ti o nsN o. 07

- 1219 21 be ca us e he was no l o ng er inc ar ce r at ed atM en ar d, the p rison wher e th e as sa ul ts t o o kpl ac e an d wher e al l o fthe de fe nd a nt s , wi tne s s e s a nd e v i de nc e we r e l o c a t e d. M r. San tia go als o s u b m its th at th er e is a re a s o n a b le li keli hood that assistan ce of coun sel du ring discov ery wo u l d h a v e c h a n g e d th e o u t c o m e o fth i s l i t i g a t i o n . He obs er ves that h e w as u nabl e t o l ear n the i denti ty of Dr. J ohn Doe, and that h e c oul d not obtain the pri son ca m er a f o o ta ge. M r . S an ti ag o a l so po i nt s o uttha t he was unabl e to i den ti fy pr i so ne r s who wi tne ss ed th e H ar ri s a nd Castr o att acks and w as, ther ef or e, una b l e t o ca l l mate r i alwi tn es se s att r i al

. M r . S an ti ag o m aint ains th at an at to rn ey w ou ld h av e h elp ed h im ob ta in th is evi dence. H e furthersubm its that hi s poo r perf or m ance at tr i aldem onst ra tes thathe was prej ud i ced by not havi ng co unsel duri ng di sco ver y. The defe nd ants subm i t that the di str i ct c ourtdi d not abuse i ts disc re ti on wh en i t denied M r. S anti ago co unsel du ri ng di sco ver y. They obser ve that M r. S anti ago fi l ed num er ous ple ading s, m oti ons and e xhibi ts w h i ch es tabl i shtha t M r . S an ti ag o unde r st o o d the na tu r e o fthe di spu te a nd was c apable of l i ti g at i nghi s ca se pr o s e. The defe nd ants m ai ntai n that M r. Sant i ago ’ s cl ai m s are not f actual l y c om plex a n d thathe b enefi tte d fr om speci al rul es that gov er n pro se l i ti gants p riorto tr i al

. They con tend thatM r. S anti ago ’ s i m pri sonm ent a t a f aci l i ty othe r than M enar d did not hi n d er h is abi l i ty to conduct dis cove ry . T he defendants furthercl ai m that M r. S anti ago is f or eclo sed fro m ar gui ng tha t he w as prej ud i ced by the l ac k of acces s t o counselduri ng di s-22 N o. 07

- 1219

W e m u st no te, i n fairn ess to ou r collea g u e in the d istrict cou rt, 9 thatthe r ul i ngs unde r re vi ew i n thi s c as e ant eda t ed o ur ru l i ng i n P ru ittv. M ote , 5 0 3 F .3d 64 7(7t h C ir . 20 0 7 ) (en b a n c). The di s t ri c tc our tthe refore di d notha ve the be ne fi tofour c l ar i fi c at i on ofthe p ri nc i pl es gove rn i ng the appo i nt m en tof c ouns el i n ci vi l l i t i gat i on

— p rinc ip les that w e no w sim p ly a p p ly to the unique ci rcum st ances ofthi s parti cular cas e. cove rybec ause hi s r ecr uit ed attor ney ne i therm ade such an ar gum ent b ef or e the di str i ct c ourtnorat tem pted to re open di sco ver y.

2. The pri nci ple s that gove rn our eval uati on o fthe re crui tm ent o f co unsel under s ecti on 1 915( e) ( 1) ar e wel l

- est abl i sh ed. I n o ur en ba nc de ci si o n i n P rui tt, 50 3 F
. 3d 647,

9 w e set forth su ccin ctly the ru les ofl aw that m us t govern th is iss u e. T h is c as e s im p ly re q u ire s t h at w e a p p ly th e s e p r i n c i p l e s t o th e r a th e r u n i q u e f a c t u a l c i r c u msta nces bef or e us i n thi s ca se. We b e g i n b y r e i t e r a t i ng

— an d r ea ffi r m i ng

— th e b as ic pr i nc i pl es s etf o r th i n P rui tt
. There i s no co nsti tuti onal orst atuto ryr i ght t o cour t- re c rui ted co unseli n federa l ci vi l l i ti g at i o n. Neverth el es s, “ ani ndi g en t ci vi l l i ti g an t m ay askthe dist ri ct c ourtto r eq u es t an at torney t o re pres e n th i m pro bono publi co . ” Id. at 649. The r ecr uit m ent o f pr o b o no c o uns el“ i s no t l i m it ed to the t r i alpha se o fthe c as e” bu t, ra th er , m ay en c om p as s d isc ov er y a s w e ll. Id. at65 5. W he n the di st r i ctc o ur t i s co nfr o nt ed wi tha re quest forc ou nselunder s ecti on 1 915( e) ( 1) , the dist ri ctN o. 07

- 1219 23

co ur t m us t m ak e th e f o ll ow in gi nqui r i es : “ ( 1) ha s th e in d ige n t pla in tiff m ad e a re as on ab le att em p t t o o b t ain co uns elo r b een effe ct i ve l y pr ec l ude d fr o m do i ngs o ; a nd i fs o , ( 2) g i ve n the di ffi cul tyo fthe c as e, doe s t he pl ainti ff ap pear com petent to l i ti gat e i t hi m sel f ?” Id. at65 4. If a co urt’ s deni alo fco unsel “a m ounts to an abuse o fi ts di sc r et i o n, we wi l l reve r se o nl y upo n a s ho wi ngo fpr ej udice

. ” Id. at 659. The defe nd ants concede that M r. S anti ago h ad m ade a re as on ab le a tt em p t t o o b ta in co u n se l p rior to filing h is fin al m ot ion for th e re c ru itm en t o f co u n se l. See A pp el l ees ’ Br. 29 n. 3. There f or e, f ol l owing the m etho dol ogyo utl i ned i n P ruitt, we m us t ne xtde te r m i ne whethe r, i n the pa r ti cul arci rcum st an c es ofthi s ca se, the dist ri ct c ourtabuse d i t s di s c r e t i o n i n de t e r mi ningtha tMr
. S a nt i a g o a ppear ed com petent, giv en the diffi cul ty ofhi s ca se, to l i ti gat e w i thout the ass i sta nce of counsel

. W e ass ess , defer enti al l y, th e d istri ct court’s d eterm ination by view ing t h e i nform ati on a vai l abl e t o the di str i ct c ourtatthe tim e that i t m ade the de ci si o n. W e m us t det er m i ne whethe r the f actualand l ega l di ffi cul ty ofthi s ca se so exceeded M r . S an ti ag o ’ s ab i l i ti es a s a l ay per son as t o make the den i alo fa ppo i nt m en t o fc o uns ela n abus e o fdi sc r et i o n. SeePruitt, 5 03 F
. 3d at6 55
. W e m us t th er efo r e ex ami ne bo ththe di ffi cul ti es p o se d b y the pa r ti cul arc as e an d the capabi l i ti es ofthe pla i nti ffto l i ti gat e s uch a ca se. W ith res p ec t t o t h e d ifficu l t y o f th e c as e, w e n ot ed in P rui ttthatcas es i nvol vi ng com ple x m edi calev i dence a r e ty pi c a l l y mo r e di ff i cul t f o r p r o s e de fe nd a nt s . On seve ra l o ccasi ons, we al so have ob ser ved the diffi cul ty24 N o. 07

- 1219 th a tp r i s o n e r s f a c e w h e n l i t i g a t i n gc o n s t i t ut i o n a l c l a i ms th a t i n v o l v e th e s t a t e o f mi n d o f th e d e fe n d a n t
. F o r i nst an c e, inM erritt v. Fa ulk ner, 697 F.2d 76 1, 764 (7th Cir. 1 9 8 3 ) , we s t a t e d: Q u ite oft en th e fa c tu al a n d lega l i s s u es in a civ il case ar e m or e com ple x than i n a c ri m i nal cas e. Thi s o fte n wi l l b e t r ue i n c as es pr es en tingc o ns ti tu
tion al qu est i ons. I nd eed, sur vi vi ng a cri ti calm oti on t o dism i ss und erFe d.R. Civ. P. 12 (b ) ( 6) m ay w el l depend upon the abi l i ty to perf or m l ega l r es ea r cha nd pr es en t so phi st i ca te d l eg ala r g um en ts in s uch doctr i nal l y c om ple x ar eas as pri so ne r medi ca l r i g ht s o r fr ee s pee ch

. Id. ( ci ta ti o ns om i tt ed)

. I n tha t ca se , we r ec o g ni ze d tha t th e i ssue ofwh etherthe defen d an ts acte d w i th del iber ate i nd if fer en ce t o the pl aint i ff’ s i nj ur y was “ to o c o m pl ex ” f orthe defe nd ant be cause the i ssue depend ed “u pon th e su bt l e appr ec i at i o n o fl eg alc au sa ti on and o fthe du ti es i m posed upo n s ta te pri son offi ci al s” by the Ei ghth A m en d m en t. Id. at76 5. Sw offord v. M andrel l , 96 9 F
. 2d 547 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 2) , i s al so i l l us tr at i ve . I n Sw o ffo rd, pri son offi ci al s a l l ege dlyf ai l ed to co m e t o the pla i nti ff’ s a i d w hen h e w as be at en se ve re ly a n d se x u ally as sa u lte d . In h is com pla i nt, the pla i nti ffal l ege d “abuse and fa i l ure ofpro te c ti o n ” u n d er th e F ou rt ee n th A m en d m en t. Id. at 548. W e o bs er ve d th at th e ca se was co m pl ex du e to “ th e di ffi cul t an d s ubt l e que st i o n o fthe st ate o fmin d” o fthe d efe n d an ts
. Id. a t 55 2. W e fur th era ckno wl edg ed th at th e pla i nti ffwas unabl e “ to i nvest i gat e cruci alfact s” and that the outco m e ofthe case w oul d turn on witnes s cr edibi l i ty.N o. 07

- 1219 25 Id. Co ns eque nt l y, we r emande d the pl aint i ff’ s cas e to the di st r i ctc o ur t so tha t i t co ul d r ec r ui t co uns el

. A g ain, these cas es did not a rt icul ate cat ego ri calr ule s, and, at b es t, se rv e a s c au tio n sign s fo r t h e d ist ric t c ou rtas it as se s se s t h e p ar tic u lar ca se be for e it
. P rui ttdi d not ov er ru le th es e c as es , d ire c tly or b y im p lica tio n . Re ad in li gh t of P rui tt ’ s r ei te r at i o n o fthe deference o wed the tr i al co ur t o n su ch m at te r s, th es e ca se s si m pl y cont inue to sugge st that si gni fi cant prudence and cauti on m ust be e xerci sed w h en as ses si ng a l ay i nd i vi du al ’ s ca pabi l i ty f o r s el f

- r epr esent at i o n. The di ss en t’ s su g g es ti o n tha t o ur col l eagues in the dist ri ct c ourtwil l r ead thi s ca se as pla ci ng a “thum b o n the scal e” i n f avo r ofr ecr uit m ent, d iss en t a t 3 7, m isa p p re h en d s o u r h old in g a n d u n d er es tim at es o urc o l l ea g ue s o n the di st r i ctb en ch

. W e ha ve no in te n tio n of u n d er m in in g, e i t he rdi r e ct l y o r by i m pl i ca t i on , th e m aj o r i tyo pi ni o n i n P rui tt
. W i thr es pec t to th e capabi l i ti es o fthe pa r ti cul arpl ainti ff, we have no t dev elo p ed cat ego ri calr ule s t o m ake th is a ss es sm en t. T h e c ap ab ility of ea c h d e f en d an t is differ ent; the f acts o f e ach cas e a re al so differ ent. There

f or e, “[ t] he i nquir y into pla i nti ffco m petence an d case di ffi cul tyi s par ti cul ar i zed to th e per so n a nd the case before th e co urt. ” P rui tt, 5 0 3 F
. 3 d a t6 5 6
. Wh i l e e mp h a s i z i n g t h a tth e r e a r e n o “ fi x e d r e q u i r e me n t s , ” we no te d i n P rui tt that a t ri alco urt n or m ally w i l l ta ke i nto consi derat i on the pla i nti ff’ s “l i ter acy, co m m unica ti on ski l l s, educati onall eve l, and l i ti gat i on e xperi ence. ” Id

. at 655. I ntel l ectu al capaci ty and psychol ogi calhi sto ry, to the e xt en t th atthe y a r e k now n, are a l so r el ev an t. The pla i nti ff’ s per f or m ance up to thatpoi nt i n the l i ti gat i on26 N o. 07

- 1219

m ayb e so m e ev i den ce o fthe se f ac to r s, b ut, i n the en d , th e e st im at ion as to w h et h er a p lain tiff c an h a n d le hi s o wn ca se mustb e “a p racti ca l o ne , made i n l i g ht ofwh ate verr el evantev i dence is avail abl e o n the questi on. ” Id.

3. W i ththi s g ui dan ce i n mi nd a nd k eeping in m i nd the d eferenc e tha t w e ow e the district cou rt on t h is m atter, w e no w tur n to an e val uati on o fthi s ca se. W e fi rst exa m ine th e nat ure of th e c a s e . M r. Santiago’s c a s e c a nn o tb e c ha r a c t e r i z e d a s a s i mpl e o ne . As a men de d, hi s com p l ai nt r ai ses a tot alo fse ven co nsti tuti onal c l a i ms a g a i n s te i g h td i ffe r e n td e fe n d a n t s . S e v e r a l c l a i ms ar e m o stpr o per l y c ha r ac te r i ze d a s Ei g hth Am en dm en t f ai l ur e to pr otect a nd de l ibe r at e i ndi ffer en ce c l ai m s. To su c c ee d in h is c laim s f o r failu re to p ro te c t a t t ria l, M r . S a nt i a g o wa s r e qu i r e d t o s ho w tha tC. O. R a mag e , C. O. K eys and W ar den W al l s knew thathe f aced a “subst an ti alr i sk ofse ri ous har m ” a nd then disr ega rded that ri sk “by f ai l i ng to tak e re aso nabl e m eas ures to abat e it .” Fa rm er, 5 1 1 U .S . at 8 47 ; a cco rd Gri e ve s on v. Ande rs on , 53 8 F
. 3 d 7 6 3 , 7 7 6 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 8 )
. T o p r o v e tha tC. O. J i ne s , C. O. Cox a nd Dr

. J o hn Doe v i o l at ed hi s Ei g hth Am en dm en t ri ghts by f ai l i ng to pro vi de m ed i calcar e, M r. S anti ago needed to establ i sh thattho se i nd i vi du al s a cted with d e l ib e r a t e i n d i ffe r e n c e . B o th o fth e s e ty p e s o fc l a i ms r equi r ed th atM r . S an ti ag o p r es en t r el ev an t an d pr o ba ti ve e vi den ce abo utthe s ta te o fmin d of th e defen -N o. 07

- 1219 27

M r . S a nt i a go f or m a l l y no t i fi ed th e c ou r to fh i s t r a ns f e r by 10 le tt er dated Au gus t 6 , 2 0 0 3 and recei ved by the dis tr ic t c ourt on A ugu st11, 2003. S ee R .43 (“Pla intiffis in d ire ne ed of cou nsel to help a ss ist in 11 obt ai ni ng h undr eds o f doc um en t s , m edi c al fi l es , i nc i dent (co n tin u ed ...) dants. A s we have note d ear l i er, pre senting thi s s or t o f evi dence is o ne o fthe m or e chal l engi ng as pects of se ct i o n 1 98 3 l i ti g at i o n. W e next turn t o the di ffi cul ty and ov er al l co m ple xi ty ofthi s ca se i n l i ght ofthe pla i nti ff’ s l i ti gat i on ca pabi l i ti es. P rui tt, 503 F.3d at 655

. W hile dealing w ith th e evide nt iary dem ands ofa case such as thi s o ne pre sents di ffi cul ti es for m an y p ris on er -p lain tiffs , M r. San tia go fac ed ad d iti o na l h ur dl e s tha tmus twe i g h he a v i l y i n a p r acti cal est i m ati on o fthe si tuati on that he f aced. Because he had been tran sferred to an oth er facil ity after the eve nt s un d erl y i nghi s cl ai m s, he f ac ed si gni fi ca ntpr o bl ems tha t he w o u l d n o t h a v e f a c e d i f h e h a d r e m a i n e d i n t h e s a me f aci l i ty. SeeTu ckerv. Ra ndall , 948 F.2d 38 8 , 3 9 1 (7th Cir.

10 1991 ) ( “ [ P] l a i nt i ffi s u nab l e t o i nv e s t i g a t e c r uc i a l f a c ts be ca us e he c ur r en tly i s i nc arcera te d i n af ac i l i tydi ffer en t from that i n w hich th e a ll eged cond uc t took place

. ”). N ot ab ly, in its ord er d en yin g t h e a p p oin tm en t o f co u n se l, th e di st r i ctc o ur t di d not m en ti o n thi s ve r y i m po r ta nt f a c t o r . T he f a c ttha tMr
. S a nt i a g o di d no th a v e r e a dy acces s t o any o fthe w i tness es, docum ents ordefendants ce r ta i nl y c o m po unde d hi s di ffi cul ty i n e ng ag i ngi n the so rtof p re tr ial d isc ov er y n e c e s s ar y t o p u t o n a c re d ible ca se . Ye t, the distric t co ur t appa r en tly de ci ded th atthe

1128 N o. 07

- 1219

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 11 re por t s , gr i ev an ces, t o r evi ew c am er a foot age ofon e ofthe incid en ts in qu estion , an d to loca te, i nte rv iew d o z e n s o f w itne sses. ”); R .56 (sta ting tha t M r. San tiag o n eed ed cou nsel to h el p sec u re ca m er a foo ta g e o f C .O . K ey s’s ac tio n s). as si st an ce o fc o uns elwas unnece ss ar y wi th o utc o nsi deri ng thi s f acto r, m uch l ess gi vi ng i t s i gni fi cant w ei ght. The om i ssi on o fthis c onsi derat i on fro m the dist ri ct cour t’ s ca l cul us i s e speci al l y s i gni fi cant i n thi s par ti cul ar c a s e . Mr
. S a n t i a g o w a s u n a wa r e o fth e n a me s o fs o me ofthe de fen dants and m any o fthe w i tness es. I n another co nt ex t, thi s co ur t wro te m o stg r aph i ca l l y o fthe quand ar y in w hi ch such l ack ofkn ow led ge pla ces an i ncarc er ate d defendant: Or di na r i l y a t o r t vi ct i m who do es no t k no w w ho the t or tfeas ori s ca nnot s ue. To know t h at one has been i nj ured to rt i ously b u t not by w hom i s a gr ou n d for t ollin g t h e s ta tu te of lim ita tio n s, b u t it i s no t a g r o und f o r fil i ngs ui t be f o r e th e pl aintiff kn ow s w h o i njured him and w ho th erefore sh ou ld be n am e d as th e d efe n d an ts . B u t t h is is not an o rdi nary c ase. Bi l l m an i s a pri son i nm ate
. H i s o ppo r tu ni ti es f o r cond uct i nga pr ec o m pl aint inq uiry are, w e ass um e, virtually nil

. Th e state’s at to r ne y s m il ed when we a sk ed hi m a t ar g um en t whethe r Bi l l m anwoul d b e g i ve n the r un o fthe pri son to i nvest i gat e t he cul pabi l i ty ofpri son empl o y ee s f o r the r ape . Ev enwi th o utdo i nga ny i nv e s t i g a t i ng, Bi l l mankne w e no ugh t o kno w that a t er rib le t h in g h a d b e e n d on e t o h im . B u t h e d idN o. 07

- 1219 29 not know enough to i denti fy the cul pri ts orto de t e r mi ne whe the r the y ha d the c o nfl ue nc e o f k no wl edg e ( o fCr ab tr ee ’ s pr o pen si tyf or rape a nd H IV s ta tu s) an d p ow er (to as sig n B illm an to a c ell) necess ar y t o h old them l i abl e f ori nfl i cti ng a crueland unusual pu ni shm ent. W e d o n otth in k t h at th e c h ild r e n ’ s g am e o f p in th e t ail on th e d on ke y is a p ro p er m od el for co n st itu ti o na l t o r t l aw. I fa pr i sone r make s al l eg at i o ns that i ftr ue i nd i cate a si gn ifi cant l i kel i hood that som eone em plo yed bythe p ris on s yst em has i n fl i c t e d c r u e l a n d u n u s u a lp u n i s h me n to n h i m, an d if th e c irc u m st an c es are su c h a s t o m ak e it i nfea sibl e f o r the pr i so ne r t o i den ti fy tha t so m eo ne bef or e filin g his co m pla i nt, hi s s uitsho uld notbe d ism iss ed as frivo lou s. . . .

. . . Ou r po i nt i s tha t b e c a us e Bi l l man i s a pri so ne r he m ayno t be i n a po si ti o n t o i den ti fy the p r o p e r d e fe n d a n t s , o r a l l o fth e m, i n h i s c o mpla i nt. I fhe were nota p ris oner, ye t co uld not reason ably be ex p ecte d to i d en tify the w rongd oers w ith ou t t h e a id of p re t r i a l d isc ov er y, h is s u it w ou ld n otbe d ism iss ed

. . . . [H ]e [w as ] n otab le to i nv es ti g at e be f o r e fi li ngs ui t. W e th i nki t i s th e d u ty ofthe dist ri ct c ourtto as si st hi m , within re as on , to m ak e t h e n ec es sa ry inv es tig at ion
. B illm a n v. Ind
. D ep’t o

f C o r r s. , 56 F. 3d 785, 789-90 (7th Cir. 1995 ) (citations an d qu otation m arks om itted ). M r. San tia go n e e d ed to p re p ar e fo r tr ial on h is o wn

— a pro cess that, gi ven the i ntra nsi gence ofthe pri son offic ials

— m i ght wel l have r equi re d the pre parat i on o f30 N o. 07

- 1219

The di s s en t ’ s as s er t i on thats uc h di s c ove ry to ol s ar e not 12 neces sar y in this cas e appea rs to be based on a cate gorical es ti m ati on ofh ow p ri soner civil rights clai m s oug ht to be tr ie d ra the r thanona f ai r eva l uat i on ofthi s r ec or d . In the e nd, the quest ion ofhow to proceed i n disc overy in the f ace ofuncoop erat i ve publ i c defen dant s i s a m at ter b est leftt o the pl ai nt i ffan d his co u nsel u nd er th e sup erv i si o n o f the trial cou rt. T he se m atter s are n o t suscep tib le to ca teg or ical p ro no u nc em en ts f rom an app el lat e pers pecti ve. “Pl ai nt i ffi s c om pet en tt o r epr es en thi m s el fthr ougho ut 13 the pretri al phase ofthi s li ti gati on. ” R.72 at2. i nt er r o g at o r i es a nd t o t ak e d ep osi ti o ns s o tha t he co ul d de te r m i ne whethe r a nyo fthe de fen dan ts h ad th e r equi si te kno wl edg e to g i ve r i se to a n Ei g hth Am en dm en t vi ol ati on a nd to di sco verthe i denti ty ofDr. J ohn Doe. 12 The dis tr i ct c ourto bser ved thatM r. S anti ago u n d er sto od the f acts o fh is c as e, because he was a w i tness to m ost ofthe re l evant c ond uct. R. 72. I t furtherpoi nted out that h e is liter at e a n d ca n follow th e ru les of p ro c ed u re . Id. The cou rt, how ever, f ail ed to con side r w he th er M r. Santiago’s l i t i g a t i o n c a p a b i l i t i e s we r e s u ffi c i e n tf o r c o n d u c t i n gt he so rt ofdi sco ver y that was nece ssa ryi n thi s par ti cul ar case and und er t h e uni que and diffi cul t ci rcum sta nces ofthi s ca se. One fur th ermatt erm us t b e no te d. I n de ny i ng M r . S an ti ag o ’ s m o ti o n f o r the a ppo i ntm en t o fc o unsel, the cou rt m ad e a de fi nitive ruling tha t M r. S an ti ag o di d no t ne ed cou ns el a t th e pr et r i als ta g e o fthe proce edi ngs. Thi s dete rm i nati on, unl i ke i ts denia l o f 13 ear l ier r equests f orthe appoint m ent o fco unsel, wasN o. 07

- 1219 31

ar tic u lat ed in d efin itiv e t er m s th at w ou ld h av e m ad e it c l e a r t o ma nya t t o r ne y s , a nd c e r t a i nl y t o Mr
. S anti ago , that the c ourtdi d no t intend to r evi si t the m att erunl ess an d unt i l a t r i alwas a s i gni ficant l i k el i ho o d. W hi l e th e co ur t wel l may ha ve tho ug htthat it w as ti m e to e nd M r. S anti ago ’ s r equests , we al so m ust be co ncer ned as to w h ethersuch a n approac h prem atur el y dete rr ed M r . S an ti ag o f r o m r en ewi ng hi s r eque st as he en co unter ed str ong head w i nd s in hi s l ate r att em pts to co nd uct disc ove ry . W hi l e P rui ttm ake s cl earthat we cannot tak e i nt o a cc o untpo st
- r eque st per f o r m an ce t o de te r m i ne w h et h er th e d ist ri c t c ou rtab u se d its d isc re tio n in d e n y i n ga r e q u e s tf o r c o u n s e l , 5 0 3 F
. 3 d a t6 5 6 , we ce r ta i nl y c anque st i o n, a s we musthe re, w he th erthe l anguage o fthe dist ri ct c ou rti n dis posi ng o fthe m att er i m perm i ssibl y pr eve n ted M r. S anti ago fro m m aki ng l ate r re quests that w oul d have be en r evi ew abl e in thi s co urt. W e e m phasi ze that the pr obl em we d i scuss here i s not th e i s su e t h at d ivid ed so m e m em b er s o f th e c ou rtin P rui tt
. There , a m i nor i ty ofthe cou rt e x p re sse d the be l i ef that a t ri alj ud ge ha s a co nti nuing obl i gat i on t o re ass ess w h et h er a p ro se litiga n t c an p ro c ee d w i th ou t c ou n se l. H ere, by co ntra st, we have the ve rydi ffer ent quest i on ofwh ethera tr i alj ud ge ou gh t to announce i n advance that he wil l n ot r eturn to the questi on, thus, as a pract i cal m at te r, l ea vingthe pr o s e l i ti g an t wi th o ut rec ou r se i fthe op p osing p arty, free ofj ud ici al scrutiny , m akes m atters m or e di ffi cul t than the j ud ge est i m ate d they w oul d becom e. A s we disc uss at som e l ength l ate r, the cour t’ s a nnouncem ent that i t would nothearano ther r eq u est f orappoi nt-32 N o. 07

- 1219

m ent o fco unsel duri ng pre tr ial m at ters w as not l osto n th e defen dan ts
. F r ee f r o m an y ac co unt ab i l i ty from the dist ri ct c ourtunti l tri al, they saw n o re aso n to be coo perati ve as M r. S anti ago st rugg l ed to col l ect the info rm ati on n ee d ed attria l. P rui tt s a y s tha t a di s t r i c t c o ur t need not re vi sit a requestf orco unsel o nce i t had m ade a deci si on on the m att er . I t di d n ot s ay thata cour t co uld announce i n advance th at it would not, under anyci rcum sta nces, enter tai n a ne w req u estno m att erhow a l i ti gant w as tr eat ed i n the future. There i s a worl d ofdi ffer en ce, bo th theo re ti caland pract i cal, betw een these two si tuati ons. The dis sent’ s f ai l ure to ackno w l edge the i m port ance o f thi s di ffer ence const i tutes an unw arrant ed att em pt to e x p a nd P ru it t be y o nd the l i m i ta ti o ns s etb y the e n b an c cour t. I n ass ess i ng the pecul i arci rcum sta nces of thi s ca se as re veal ed by our car eful study o fthe re cor d, w e hav e k epti n mi nd the g r ea t defer en ce tha t we o we t o the dist ri ct c ourti n thi s m att er . H owever, r evi ew under an abuse ofdi scr eti on s tandard i s no t the equi val ent o f no r evi ew at al l, and s crutiny of the re cor d form etho dol ogi call apses is w el l withi n the du ty and the ca pabi l i ty of ana ppel l at e cour t, a s l o nga s i t co nfi ne s i ts el ft o the r ec o r d a nd o m i ts fr o m i ts est i m at i o ns a ny pr edi l ec ti o ns of its o w n. H er e, we m ust co ncl ud e that the di str i ct c o u r tf a i l e d t o t a k e i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n th e p e c u l i a r c i r c u mst an c es of th is c as e t h at m ad e t h e p r et ria l p h as e o f th is li tigation esp eciall y d iffi cu lt for this pa rticular pl a in tiff. T h i s c a s e p r e s e n t s an u n u s u a lc o n fl u e n c e o fc i r c u msta nces

— re l ati vel y di ffi c u l t a l l ega ti ons to prove , co nfinem en t i n ano th erf ac i l i tydur i ngt r i alpr epa r at i o n, theN o. 07

- 1219 33 i nab i l i t y t o i de nt i fy p a r t i e s a nd wi tne s s e s , a nd a dec i dedl y unc o o perati ve pr i so n a dm i ni st r at i o n who h ad th e a ss u ra n c es of th e m ag ist ra te ju d ge th at it wo u l d n o th a v e t o wo r r y ab o u ta l a wy e r b e i ng ar ound d uri ng the di sco ver y per i od. U nd er tak i ng di sco ver y in th i s par ti cul arco m bi nati on o fci rcum sta nces m ade the pla yi ng fi el d an yt hi ng but l eve l

. Thi s co m bi nati on o f ci rcum sta nces m ay not al w ays warra nt the r ecr uit

m ent o fco unsel, b ut, o n thi s r eco rd, the m agi str ate j udg e’ s m etho do l o g i ca l l aps e i n f ai l i ngt o g i ve ful l c o nsi derat i on t o each f act or co nsti tutes an abuse o fdi scr eti on. The si tuati on her e i s qual i tat i vel y di ffer ent from typi ca l pr i so n l i ti g at i o n. Gi ve n the di st r i ctc o ur t’ s f ai lure to con side r all th ese f acto rs in evalu ating M r. Santiago’s re quest forco unsel, w e m ust co ncl ud e that the di str i ct co ur t dev i at ed f r o m the acc ept ed appr o ac h t o s ucha degre e that we cannotl et the j ud gm ent s tand ev en und erthe defe re nti als tandard o fr evi ew thatwe em plo y i n thes e ca ses . A gai n, we do not, as the diss ent c harg es, s u b s t i t u t e o u r j u d g me n tf o r th a to fth e t r i a l c o u r t
. We si m pl y r equi r e th atthe di st r i ctc o ur t co ns i dera l l o fthe f ac to r s th atthe l aw r equi r es i t to co ns i deri n mak i ng i ts j ud gm ent.

4. O u r ta sk is far from ov er . P rui tt m ake s cl ear that, ev en i fwe det er m i ne tha t th e di st r i ctc o ur t’ s den i alo fthe appo i n t me n to fc o u n s e l wa s a n ab u s e o fd i s c r e t i o n, we s h o u l d n o t r e v e r s e u n l e s s th e r e h a s b e e n a s ho wi ng ofprej u d ice
. SeePruitt, 50 3 F
. 3d at 654. “[ P]r ej ud i ce m ay34 N o. 07

- 1219

The d efendan ts subm it that M r. Santi ago was not prej ud ic ed 14 by his l ack ofcounsel, because the court- rec ruit ed counsel di d nots eek to re ope n di s c ove ry . W e di s agr ee . Nota bl y, the a p p o in tm en t o f c o u n se l w a s m a d e “ o n ly fo r p u rp o se s o f tri a l.” R. 17 3. M r. S an tiago’ s at t or ne y m ade hi s fi rs tappe ar anc e on D ece m b er 5, 2006

— ne arly tw o y ear s after the clo se of d isc o v e r y a n d t h r e e - a n d

- a - h a l fy e a r s a ft e r Mr
. S a n t i a g o ’ s c o m- (co n tin u ed ...) be e stabl i shed by a l i ti gant’ s poo r perf or m an c e be f or e o r d u rin g t ria l.” Id. at65 9. Thi s incl ud es evi dence fro m th e record that “d em ons trates th at th e pro se p lai nt iff w as i ncapabl e o fenga gi ng i n any in ve stig ati on[ ] o r l oc ati ng and pres enti ng k ey w i tness es orev i dence. ” Id. We en g ag e i n a t o ta l i ty
- o f

- th e- ci r cumst an ce s r ev i ew o fthe p ro c ee d in gs to d et er m in e w h et h er th er e is a re a s o n a b le l i kel i hood thatthe prese nce o fco un se l would have alt er ed th e o u tc om e in th is c as e. Id. at66 0. W e be gi n by noti ng tha t M r. S anti ago ’ s l ate r att em pts t o c o n d u c tr e l e v a n td i s c o v e r y we r e n o ts u c c es sfu l

. As we ha ve c hr o ni cle d i n the e ar l y pa r t o fthi s o pi ni o n, al though t he di str i ct c ourtapparent l y e xpected hi m to ne gotiate w ith p rison offici als w ith resp ect t o his i nform ati on needs, he har dlyf ound a r ecepti ve, o r coo perat i ve, ear . The tr eat m en t aff or ded hi m by the defe nd ants w as not, i t i s s afe t o say, the sam e t re atm ent that wo u ld have been aff or ded a m em bero fthe bar

. A s we al so h av e n ot ed e ar lier, th e c ou rt ’s d efin itiv e d isp os itio n of h is las t m ot ion for t h e a p p oin tm en t o f co u n s e l rea so n ab ly coul d have be en i nter prete d as pr ecl ud i ng r eappli cati on du ri ng the pre tr i aldi sco ver y per i od

. T he defendants 14N o. 07

- 1219 35

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 14 plaintw as fil ed. The dis tr ic t court st ated cl earl y that itbeli eved Mr
. S a n t i a g o wa s c a p a b l e o fc ompl e t i n g d i s c o v e r y o n h i s o wn an d tha t cou nsel w as ne cessary for trial p u rp oses o nly

. B eca u se M r. Santi ago’ s counsel had no re ason t o beli eve thatthe court w as w illing to reo p en d iscov er y , w e d o n ot b eliev e tha t his f ai l ur e t o s ee k a ddit i ona l di s c ove ry s houl d b ar M r. Sa nt i ago f rom es tabli shi ng p rej ud ic e. As we ha v e no ted, the di s s en ts pec ul at es that, des pi t e the 15 c l e a r l i m i t a t i on s we h a ve e x pr e s s e d, o ur h oldi ng t od a y wi l l be (co n tin u ed ...) apparentl y inter prete d the di str i ct c ourt ’ s or der in that w ay , a n d M r. S anti ago cam e upon hi s t ri aldate w i th l i ttl e t o show fo r hi s e ff or ts. M r . S an ti ag o c l ea r l y ha s e st ab l i sh ed pr ej udi ce b y v i r tu e o fh i s p o o r p e r f o r ma n c e b e f o r e a n d d u r i n gt r i a l

. As f or eshadowed by Bil l m an , the dist ri ct c ourtwas f or ced to drop Dr. J ohn Doe a s a defenda n t pr i orto tr i albec ause Mr
. S a n t i a g o wa s u n a b l e to a s c e r t a i n h i s i d e n t i t y . At t r i a l , M r. San tia go ’s o n ly w itn es s w as H ar ris

— the i nma te who ha d thr ea te ne d hi m . No wi tn es se s to a ny o fthe as sa u lts ap p ea r to h av e b ee n fou n d . M r. San tia go ’s in ab ili tyt o i den ti fy k eywi tn es se s, de po se the de fen dan ts a nd gather pertin en t evi dence such as the surve i l l ance t apes h in d er ed h is a b ility to p re se n t h is c as e. A n at to rn ey co u ld have hel ped perf or m allof thes e task s a nd would not have been deter re d by the def en d ants’ cl ai m thati nm ate
w i tness es w er e “ not re lev an t.” R
. 85, Ex. A at2. W e there

f o r e m us t co nc l ude tha t th e as si st an ce of couns eldur i ng disc ove ryco uld have st re ngthened M r. S anti ago ’ s ca se “i n a m an n er rea so n ab ly like ly to alt er th e o u tc om e.” 1536 N o. 07

- 1219

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 15 rea d b y the d istrict cou r t s of this circuit as an instru ction to
“ ‘ m ove the e xe rc i s e ofdi s c re t i on t ow ard r ec ru i t m en tof c ouns el m or e oft entha n not
. ’ ” D i s s en tat48

- 49 ( quo t i ng P ru itt, 50 3 F .3d at 66 1)
. T h e c o nseq u en ce, acco rd ing to the d issent, is the im posit ion of“a c ostto the bench and bar al ike. ” Id. W e rei ter ate once again that our d eci si on today i s not i ntended to plac e any “thum b on th e sc ale , ” diss ent at 37, ofthe reas on a bl e e x e r c i s e o fdi s c r e ti on by the di s t r i c tc ou r t
. I twou l d b e a gro s s m i s re adi ng o four dec i s i on f or an y m em ber ofthe ben c h o r b ar t o r ea d our dec i s i on as r equi ri ng a nythi ng m o re th a n ad h er en ce to p ri n ci p le s o f set tle d la w . The e n ba nc dec i s i on i n P ru ittably bala n ce d t h e i nter es ts at stak e a nd set them f or th in m easu red ton es. W e tak e this lan g u a g e a t f ace v alu e an d tak e seriou sly th e lim ited ap p ellate task tha t it define s. P rui tt, 5 03 F
. 3d at6 60
. M r . S an ti ag o ha s es tablished the re quis i te prej ud i ce. F i na l l y, we r e i t e r a t e o n c e a g a i n th a tth e t a s kwe have und er tak en i s s i m plyto applywell

- est abl i shed pr i nc i pl es , i nc l udi ngtho se r ec en tly a r ti cul at ed i n P rui tt, to the r eco rd thathas com e be f or e us i n thi s ca se. There f or e, alt h ou gh th e p rin c ip les of law w e a rt icu lat e a re w ellest abl i shed, o ur pre ci se hol ding i s l i m ited t o the f acts an d ci r cumst an ce s f o und i n th e r ec o r d o f th i s l i ti g at i o n. I n th at sen se, ou r ho ldi ng, like a s p e c i a l r ailr oa d fare , i s l i m i ted “t o thi s day and thi s t ra i n onl y. ”N o. 07

- 1219 37 Conclusi on Forthe f or ego i ng reas ons, w e affi rm i n partand re ver se in p ar t t h e jud gm en t o f th e d ist ric t c ou rtan d rem an d th is ca se f o r fur th erpr o ce eding s co ns i st en t wi ththi s o pi ni o n. N o cos ts shal l be aw ar ded i n thi s co urt. A FFI RMED i n part; R EVER S ED a nd R EMAND ED i n p art

S YKES, C ircu it Judge, di ss en ting . I a g re e w ith m y c oll ea g ue s th atthe di st r i ctc ou rt pro per l y di smi ss ed Cou nt One ofthe c om pla i nt, i n w hi ch Sa nti ago al l ege d that Corr ecti onalOffi c ers Rednour and Bu tl erf ai l ed to p rotect h im from H arris, a fell ow inm ate at th e M en ard C orrecti o n a l C en ter. Ialso agree th at th e d istri ct cou rt proper l y di sm i ssed C ount Tw o, wh i ch al l ege d that Sg t. Suem ni cht and “ C.O. J ohn Doe” used ex cess i ve f o r ce i n b r ea k i ngup th e fi g htb etwee n Har r i s an d Sant i ago i n the pri son cafete ri a. I dis agr ee, however, with th e d ec isio nto rein st at e C ou n t F ou r. T h at cla im

— al l eg i ng that W ar den W al l s f ai l ed to p ro tectS anti ago fro m an atta ck by h is cel lm ate C astro

— w as al so proper l y di sm i sse d fo r re aso ns Iwil l expl ai n i n a m om ent. M ore significant ly, Ican not a gree th at th e d istri ct cou rt ab us ed i ts di sc r et i o n by dec l i ni ng to r ec r ui t p ro bo no counse l f o r S an ti ag o dur i ngdi sc o ve r y . I n Pr u i t tv . M ote, 503 F. 3d 647 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07 ) (e n banc), we hel d that 2 8 U
. S. C. § 1 915( e) ( 1) pl aces no thum b o n the sc ale ei ther38 N o. 07

- 1219 f oro r aga i nst r ecr uit i ng vo lu nteerco unsel f oran in d igent l i ti gant, ei theri n gene ra l o r i n any parti cul ar cate gor y or type of c as e. Id. at 654. W e a l so hel d that a dist ri ct c ourt ’ s deci si on notto r ecr uitco unsel i s e nti tl ed to su b s t an tia l d efe re n c e o n ap p ea l. Id. U n like m y c ollea gu es , Is ee n o a b u se of d isc re tio n in t h e w ay in whi chth e m ag i st r at e j udg e ha ndl ed S an ti ag o ’ s va r i o us r eque st s f o r r ec r ui te d pr o b o no c o uns eldur i ngthe cour se ofthi s ca se. A ccor dingl y, Ir espect full y di sse nt. F i r st, Idi sa g r ee wi ththe maj o r i ty ’ s co nc l us i o n t o r einsta te Count Four, w hi ch all ege d that W ar den W al l s f ai l ed to p ro te c t Sa n tia go from as sa u lt b y C a st ro . A s a p p lica b le here , thi s cl ai m has the f ol l owing tw o el em ents: (1) th at Sant i ago was i ncarc er at ed und erco nd i ti ons posi ng a su b st an tia l risk o f s er iou s h ar m ; an d (2) th at W ar d en W alls was de l ibe r at ely i ndi ffer en t to tha t r i sk, tha t i s, tha t he perso nal l y knew o fthe ri sk and deliber ate l y di sr ega rded it. Far m e rv. Br e nna n , 511 U .S. 82 5, 83 4 (1 99 4); Pinke r t on v. M a dry, 440 F .3d 87 9, 89 2 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06)
. S anti ago att ached a copy o fthe gr i evance r el evantto thi s cl ai m as an exhibi t t o h i s co m pla i nt. Based o n the conte nts o f that gr i evance , he pl eaded hi m sel fo ut o fco urt. The gr i evance i s date d June 2, 20 02

— four d ays before San tiago’s fi gh t w ith C astro

— an d it w as filed d ire c tly w i th t he warden’s o ffi ce. I n thi s g ri evance S anti ago no t a b l y di d not co m pl ain tha t he was a t r i sko fs er i o us harm fro m Castr o, nordi d he com pla i n that C as tr o has a h i s t o r y o fa s s a ul t i ngc e l l mat e s . I ns t e a d, h e lo dg e d a m or e g ener alo bj ecti on to h i s cur re nt ce l l m ate

— w hom h e d i d no t n a me

— and sai d that thi s inm ate sho uld haveN o. 07

- 1219 39 been pla ced on hi s “ enem i es list

. ” He al so cl ai m ed that unnam ed pri son em p loy ees were re tal i ati ng ag ai nst hi m by “pl aci ng m e in cel l s with i nm at es theyknew Iwouldn’tbe abl e t o l i ve i n the sam e ce l l with with [ si c] the s am e intenti ons ofpro vok i n g m e into a physi cal c on fro n ta tio n an d ke ep in g m e in th e s eg re ga tio n u n it.” H e co nt en ded fur th ertha t th es e pr i so n e m ploy ee s “c o nti nue to ei therpro vok e m e int o al ter cati ons ofco nfr ontati on or pla ce m e into physi calco nfr ontat i ons w i th o ther i nm ate s. ” F i nal l y, h e sai d: “Iam curr entl y b ei ng house d wi tha no th eri nm at e, d is pi te [ si c] my nu m er o us re q u es t [s ic] fo r sin gle ce ll.” Read gener ou sly, thi s g ri evance at m ost est abl i shes that W ar d en W alls w as aw ar e t h at Sa n tia go w an te d a sin gle cel l to avo i d bei ng pro vok ed i nto confro ntati ons w i th cellm ates h e c ou ldn ’t get al ong w ith an d that his curre nt ce l l m ate sho uld hav e b een on hi s “ enem i es l i st” f or unstate d r ea sons. I t a l so est abl i shes that the warden w as aw ar e that S anti ago acc used unnam ed pri son em plo yee s of p lac in g h im in s itu at ion s t h at w ou ld p ro vo ke h im i nto al ter c at ions w i th o theri nm ate s a nd cl ai m ed these empl o y ee s wer e m o ti va te d b y a des i r e to k ee p hi m c o nfi ned i n the seg re gat i on un i t. I m port antl y, the gr i evance does not sa y Sa n tia go fea re d be i n g a t t ac ke d by h is c ellm ate
. I nstea d, Sa n ti ago co m pla i ned that he m i ght b e “pro vok ed” i nto ass aul ti ng hi s ce l l m ate orano therinm ate
. Based on the co ntents ofthi s g ri evance , S anti ago cannot preva i l

. A s a m att ero fl aw , W ar den W al l s ca nnot hav e been del iber ate l y ind i ffer ent t o a ri sk that Sant i ago w oul d be a tta cked byhi s ce l l m ate wh en the gr i evance i n que st i o n a l er te d the war dent o a n e nt i r ely di fferent40 N o. 07

- 1219

sor t o fr i sk

— a r i sk that Sant i ago him se lf m i ght a tta ck anothe r i nm ate
. T h e r e i s a n a d d i t i o n a l r e a s o n n o tt o r e i n s t a t e th i s c l a i m. A l though S anti ago al l ege d i n hi s co m pla i nt that C a stro a t t a c k e d him , at trial he told qu ite a d iffere n t story

— o ne m or e co nsi ste nt with the c onte nts o fthe gr i evance . H e t est i fi ed that he a n d C as tr o w er e hav i ng a heate d ar g um en t ab o utfl us hi ngthe to i l eti n the i r c el l, tha t th e ar gum ent e scal ate d, an d that he

— Sant i ago

— th r ew the fi r stpunc h. A ful l

-bl ow n fi ghte ns ue d a nd he g o t th e w or st ofi t, sust ai ni ng vari ous inj uri es. I n m y j ud gm ent, o n r emand th e war den woul d be en ti tl ed to sum m ary j ud gm ent b as ed on Santi ago ’ s t ri alte sti m ony. S anti ago can not recover on h is cl aim that the w ard en w as d eliberate l y ind i ffer en t to a ri sk ofhar m fro m Castr o w hen S a n ti ago him se lf s t a r t e d the fi g ht

. I wo ul d a ffi r m the di sm issal of Cou nt Four. This brin gs m e to the m aj or i ty’ s r eve rs alo fthe dist ri ct co ur t’ s dec i si o n n o t to r ec r ui t pr o b o no c o uns elu nt ilthe ti m e o f tr ial

. I n P rui ttthi s co ur t sa t enb an c to c l ar i fy the l ega l st andards thatgui de the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s e xerci se ofdi scr eti on wh en co nfr onte d w i th a re quest forr ecr uit

m en t o f p r o b ono co un sel un d er 28 U
. S. C
. § 1915(e)(1)
. W e he l d tha t when ani ndi g en t pl aint i ffr eque st s co unse l unde r § 1 91 5( e) ( 1) , the di st r i ctc o ur t m us t m ak e th e f o l l o wi ngi nqui r i e s : “ ( 1 ) h a s the i nd i g e ntp l a i nt i ffma de a re as on ab le a tt em p t t o ob ta in co u n se l o r b ee n effe c tiv ely precl ud ed f ro m d oi ng so; and i fso , ( 2) gi ven the di ffi cul ty ofthe case , does the p l ai nti ffappear com petent to l i ti gat e i t hi m self ?” P rui tt, 50 3 F .3d at65 4. W e fu rt h er h eldN o. 07

- 1219 41 th at “[a]l th ou gh [ § 1915 (e)( 1)] ‘l egitim izes ’ the cou rt’s re quest fora pro bono l aw yer, i ts l anguage suggest s no co ngre ssi onal prefer ence f orr ecr uit m ent o fco unsel i n any parti cul arci rcum sta nce or c at ego ryo fcas e. ” Id. ( quoti ng Johnson v. D ough ty, 43 3 F
. 3d 10 01 , 10 06 ( 7th Cir. 2006 ))
. W e als o a d d re ss ed th e s ep ar at e q u es tio n of th e a p p ell ate st andard o fr evi ew , em phasi zi ng tha t a pp el l ate re vi ew

— for ab u se of d isc re tio n on ly

— i s l i m i te d a nd high ly d eferential. “A s w ith an y d iscretionary d eterm i nati on , the quest i on o n appell ate r evi ew i s no t w h et h er w e w o u ld h av e re c ru ite d a vo lu n te er law ye r in the ci rcum sta nces, but w hether the dist ri ct cour t a pp l i ed th e c or re c t le ga l st an d a r d an d rea c h ed a re as on ab le deci si on o n f acts supporte d by the r eco rd. ” Id. at 658. The m aj or i ty note s the di st rict- cour t a nd appel l ate s t a n d a r d s fr o m P rui tt b u t ess en tia lly u n d er ta ke s a w h olly i nde pen den t an al y si s o fS an ti ag o ’ s r eque stf o r pr o b o no co uns el, re qui r i ngr ec r ui tmento fc o uns eldur i ngthe disc ov ery phase o fthi s ca se f orbas i cal l y tw o re aso ns: ( 1) S anti ago ’ s cl ai m s r equi re pro ofthatpri son officia ls wer e del ibe r at ely i ndi ffer ent t o a r i skt o hi s sa fety ; a nd (2) Sa nti ago had bee n tr ansfer re d to anothe r pri son by th e t im e h e filed h is law su it. T h e f i r s t o f th es e fa c to rs is p resen t in m an y p risoner case s; as su ch , th e m ajority’s h old in g c ou ld be u n d er st oo d to su gg es t a ge n er al ru le re quir i ng pro bo no co unsel i n del iber ate-in differ ence case s. The se cond f acto r i s a l so not uncom m on a n d i s no t si gn ifi cant e nough to warra nt r eve rs alo fthe m agi str ate j udg e’ s di sc r et i o na r y de ci si o n.42 N o. 07

- 1219 Our de ci si o n i n P rui tt speci fi cal l y a dd re sse d the l i m i ted na tu re of th e ap p ell ate role in r e v iew ing a d istri ct cou rt’s deci si on notto re c ru it pr o bono counsel : “[ W ] e do not un d ertake ou r ow n an alysis of the d egree o f case diffi cul ty as aga i nst the pla i nti ff’ s com petence to liti gat e i t hi m sel f; thatis the dist ri ct court ’ s inqui ry, noto urs. ” Id. W e e m phasi zed the distri ct c ourt ’ s s up er i orposi ti on to eval uate re quests f or pro bono counsel and rei ter ate d that the re view i ng co urt’ s inquir y a sks only whethe r the court’s d eci si on was r eas onabl e: “ ‘ W e a sk not w hether [th e jud ge ] w as righ t, bu t w h et h er h e w as r e a s o n ab le.’ ” Id. a t6 5 9 ( qu o t i ng Fa r m e rv. Haas , 99 0 F
. 2d 319, 32 2 ( 7 th Ci r . 1 9 9 3 ) ( a l t e r a t i o n i n o r i g i na l ) )
. P r o pe r l y f o c us e d, th en , ap p ella te rev iew of d ec isio n s d ec l i n i n g to rec ru it c ou n se l un d er § 19 15 (e)(1 ) w i l l res u lt in rev er sa l on ly in th e ra re ca se w h er e t h e d ist ric t c ou rt ’s d ec i sio n is base d on an e rr oro fl aw o r cl ear l y err oneo us f actfi nd i ng, or is arb itr ar y or irra tio n al. Id. at65 8. The magi st r at e j udg e’ s dec i si o n h er e su ffer s f r o m no ne ofthes e infi rm i ti es. Though he deci ded the m att er bef or e P rui ttwas i ssued, th e j ud ge touched al l the base s. First, he sp ecifi cally a d d ressed the n atu re of San tiago’s c l a i ms

— ex ce ss i ve f o r ce , fai l ur e to pr o te ct, i ns uffi ci en t m edi calcar e, and re tal i ati on

— a n d c onc lud ed they w ere no t o ve r ly com p le x i n the c i r cumst an ce s o fthi s ca se . The j udg e th ene va l ua te d S an ti ag o ’ s ca pab i l i ti es a nd the re sour ces avai l abl e t o hi m i n pri son, as P rui tt re quir es. Th e j u d g e n o t e d th a tS a n t i a g o i s l i t e r a t e , u n d e r s t o o d the nature o fhi s cl ai m s, and had d em onstrat ed the abi l i ty to “ co m pr eh en d a nd f o l l o w ru l es o f p r o ce dur e. ” The j u d ge fu rt h er n ot ed th at Sa n tia go h ad “p er so n al k n ow l-N o. 07

- 1219 43

The c ase s the m aj ority ci tes

— S w o ffo rd v . M a n d re ll, 969 F. 2d 547 1 (7 th C ir . 19 9 2 ); M err i tt v . F a u l kn er, 697 F. 2d 761 ( 7th Cir

. 1983)

— pred ate P ru itt and m ust be read in li ght ofthe princi ples explai ned in our en b a n c d ecis ion. To the ex tentthe se cas es s ugge s t del iber at e- i ndi ff er en c e c l ai m s ar e i nhe re nt l y t oo (co n tin u ed ...) edg e o fthe r el ev an t f ac ts ” an d r ea so nabl e ac ce ss t o do cum ents, post alse rv i ces, a l ibra ryand l ega l m ate ri al s, and ph oto copyi ng se rv i ces. T he j ud ge re ser ved j ud gm ent about w hetherS anti ago would be com p ete nt to try hi s o w n case but concl ud ed that h e w as com petent to hand l e the “pr etria l p hase ofthi s l i ti gat i on. ” How eve r st r o ng l y my c o l l ea g ue s m aydi sa g r ee wi ththi s dec i si o n, nothi ng i n the j ud ge’ s r eason ing r efl ects an abuse o f di sc r et i o n. A s I h av e no te d , th e m ajorit y h as foc u se d on es se n tia lly two f ac to r s: ( 1) the s uppo se d c o m pl ex i tyofpr o ving de l iber ate i nd i ffer ence; and ( 2) the f act that Sant i ago had been m ove d to a di ffer ent pr i son b y th e t i m e he fi l ed his case

. Tak en i nd ivi d ua lly , neith er of th ese factors j usti fi es re ver salunder o ur defer enti alst andard of re vie w ; no r ar e t h ey en ou gh co n sid er e d t og et h er to ca ll i nt o ques ti o n the magi st r at e j udg e’ s ex er ci se o fdi sc r et i o n. Sant i ago ’ s ca se i ncl ud ed cl ai m s o fexce ssi ve f or ce, f ai l ur e to pr o te ct, del ay ed o r i ns uffi ci en t m edi ca l c ar e, a nd re ta liat ion , all ste m m in g fro m tw o figh ts in t h e p ris on . I do n ot a gr ee that the s tat e- of

- m i nd el em ents i n thes e c laim s a re eit h er inh er en tly co m p lex or u n iq u ely d ifficu lt in the c i r cumst an ce s o fthi s ca se . Ea chde fen dan t’ s 144 N o. 07

- 1219

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 1 com plex f or an i nd igentpro se l it igant, the y hav e been s up ers ede d by P ru itt
. sta te ofm i nd i s infe rr ed pri m ar i l y fro m the ci rcum sta nces surr ounding the a ssa ult s in questi on a nd the gr ieva nces Sant i ago fi l ed al er ting p ri son offi ci al s t o hi s co m pla i nts a b o utHa r r i s a nd Ca s t r o . As the ma g i s t r a t e j udge proper l y note d, Sant i ago had per sonal knowle d ge o f these f ac ts a nd ci rcum sta nces and did not re quir e a ssi st a n c e o fc o u n s e l t o d i s c o v e r th e m. The m aj or i ty concl ud es that Sant i ago was i ncapabl e o f c o n d u c t i n g d i s c o v e r y o n h i s o wn

— i n pa r ti cul ar, tha t he was i nc apabl e of p r epa r i ngi nt er r o g at o r i es a nd t ak i ng deposi ti ons “so t hat he coul d determ i ne wh etherany of the defendant s had the r equi si te knowle dge to gi ve ri se to a n Ei g hth Am en dm en t vi o l at i o n a nd t o di sc o ve r the i denti ty ofDr. J ohn Doe. ” M aj
. o p. at30 . T he i denti ty of Dr
. J o hn Doe was o bt ainabl e bys i m pl e i nt er r ogatory ordocum ent r equest; n othi ng i n the re cor d sugges ts San tiago w as incap abl e of su bm itti ng suc h a straigh tforw ar d questi on t o the defen dants hi m sel f

. A nd Iam hesi tant to co ncl ud e fro m o ur a pp el l ate
- cour t v antag e p oint th at th is case requ ired d ep ositi ons to p robe stat e-ofm i nd i ssues . I t be ar s r epeating tha t i t i s the dist ri ct co urt ’s prer oga ti ve

— not ours

— to deter m i ne wh ether a pro se l i ti gant i s g ener al l y c apabl e ofnavi gat i ng pre tr i aldi sco ver y u n d er th e p ar tic u la r c irc u m st an c es of th e c as e. A lthou g h my c o l l e a g ue s di s a g r e e wi th the ma g i s t r ate j u d ge ’s a ss es s m e n t of Sa n tia go ’s c om p et en c e t o h an d leN o. 07

- 1219 45 the pr etr i alpre parat i on o fhi s ca se, the j ud ge’ s decisi on w as hardl y unre asonable

— a nd that i s the appropr i ate q u es tio n on ap p el l a te rev iew
. See Ja ckson v. Ko tter, 54 1 F. 3d 688, 700 (7th Cir

. 20 08) ( applying P rui tt an d de fer r i ng to the di str i ct c ourt ’ s deci si on decl i ni ng to r ecr uitco unsel i n a c ase i nvol vi ng si m i l aral l ega ti ons ofexce ssi ve f or ce, d eliberat e ind ifferenc e, an d i na d eq ua te m ed ical care). I t i s t rue the m agi str ate j ud ge d id n ot co nsi der the f act th at d uring the p en d en cy of his case, San tiago w a s incarcer ate d at a pri son othe r than M enard , w here the eve nts at i ssue too k pl ace. It is n ot cl earwh y thi s s houl d m ake any di ffer ence, l et al one a di ffer en c e si gni fi cant e nough to displ ace the m agi str ate j ud ge’ s deci si on. The m aj or i ty does not expla i n w hy a pri sone r’ s incarcer at ion a t a d iffer en t p ris on m ak e s d isc ov er y in h er en tly m or e d iffic u l t. W ith th e e x c ep tio n of d ep os itio n s, d isc ov er y is co nd uc ted l ar g ely thr o ug h wr i tt enr eque st s; de po si ti o ns ar e ini ti ated u p on w ri tte n noti ce a nd , to the extent they ar e ne ce ss ar y, obvio us l y ne ed no t be c o nduc te d a t th e pl a c e wh e r e the e v e nt s a ti s s ue i n the l i t i g a t i o n o c c ur r e d. T he m agistrate j ud ge sp ec ificall y con side red Santiago’s ca pab i l i ti es a nd the r es o ur ce s av ail abl e to hi m , no tinghe w as l i ter ate and had acces s t o docum ents, post alse rv i ces, a la w libra ry , an d p h ot o c o p y i n g s er vic es to as sis t h im i n p r epa r i nghi s di sc o ve r y r eque st s. I n my v i ew, the j ud ge’ s f ai l ure to separ ate l y a dd re ss Sant i ago ’ s incarc er ati on a t a di ffer ent pr i son i s n ot si gni fi cant e nough to wa r r a n tr e v e r s a l un d e r o u r d e fe r e n t i a l s t a n d a r d o fr e v i e w. The m aj or i ty al so tak es i ssue w ith the m agi str ate j ud ge’ s l anguage i n hi s o rd er denyi ng S anti ago ’ s f ourth46 N o. 07

- 1219

m oti on f orco unsel, suggest i ng i t “ i m perm i ssibl y pr even te d M r. San tia go from m ak in g la te r re q u es ts th at w ou ld have been re vi ew abl e in thi s co urt. ” M aj
. o p. at31
. W i th re sp ec t, I fin d th is c rit icis m o f th e jud ge p ar tic u lar ly unw ar r an te d. W e he l d i n P rui tt th at th e d istri ct cou rt h as n o d u ty to m on ito r w h et h er an ind ige n t litig an t is com petentl y l i ti gat i ng hi s c lai m s thro ughout the l i ti gati on a nd there for e no o bl i gat i on t o re vi si t a n ear l i er d en ial of p ro bo n o c ou n se l. P rui tt, 5 0 3 F
. 3 d a t6 5 8
. We ackno w l edged, however, that the cour t has the di s cre t i on to proce ed i ncre m ental l y o n thi s quest i on i fi t cho ose s, i d. , and that’ s e xactl y what th e j ud ge did her e. The j ud ge h eld th at Sa n ti a g o w as “c om p et en t t o re p re se n t h im se lf th r o ugho utthe p r e t r i a l p ha s e o fthi s l i t i g a t i o n” b utthat h i s s k i lls “m ay n otsu ffice attria l,” an d on th is b as is den i ed S an ti ag o ’ s r eque st f o r pr o bo no co uns el“ wi th o ut prej ud i ce t o hi s r i ght t o see k r epresen ta tion f orpurposes oftr i al

. ” The j ud ge l ate r re crui ted pro bo no co unse l to re p re se n t Sa n tia go attria l. The m aj or i ty f aul ts the j ud ge f orusin g the l anguage Ihave quote d , s ayi ng i t was to o “defi ni ti ve” and m ay have i nhibi ted furtherr equests forco unsel du ring dis

cove ry . M aj
. op. at 30- 31. This i s hi ghl y doubtfu l. P ris on i nm at es g en er al l y a r e no t shy a boutfi l i ngmot i o ns a nd ar e no t o fte n de ter r ed byc o nc erns abo utt r y i ngthe cour t’ s pati ence. M or e i m port an tl y, the m aj or i ty has e ffe c t i v e l y s ug g e s t e d tha tthe di s t r i c tc o ur t m ust proce ed in c re m en ta lly on th e q u es tio n of re c ru itm en t o f co u n se l, al ways ke epi n g th e m att ero pen f orfurtherr evi ew at any po i nta l o ngthe way . W e spe ci fi ca l l y he l d i n P rui tt that ther e i s no such r ule

. 503 F. 3d at 656- 58.N o. 07

- 1219 47 Fi nal l y, a few words abo u t the m aj or i ty’ s prej ud i ce an al y si s. The m aj o r i tyno te s th atthe c l ai m a g ains t Dr
. J o hn Doe was dis m i sse d pri orto tr i albec ause Sant i ago coul d not i denti fy hi m and sugg est s thi s i s e vi dence of pr ej udi ce . A s Ihav e a l r ea dy e xpl aine d, the r e was no th i ng th at p reven ted Santiago from dis c overing th e d octor’s i denti ty. A l l i t t ook was a si m ple i nter ro gat or y quest i on ordocum en t re quest; as si sta nce o fco unsel was not re quir ed f orthat

. The m aj or i ty al so concludes that S an ti ag o ’ s i nabi l ity to l o ca te o th erwi tn es se s to the as sa ul ts a nd “ g athe r pe r tine nte vi den ce su ch as the su rv eilla n c e t ap es ” h am p er ed h is a b ility to p re se n t h is ca se . M aj
. o p. a t 3 5. B ut i t’ s i m po r ta ntt o f o cus o n the crux o fthe cl ai m s that a ctual ly w ent t o tr i al

. Fo ur co unts survi ved scr eeni ng an d p ro ceeded to tr i al : Count Three , ag ains t Cor r ec ti o na l Offi ce r Key s f o r all ege dl y y an k i ng o n S an tiag o ’ s ha ndcu ff s whi l e es co r tinghi m fr o m the i nfi rm ar y t o seg re gat i on a fter the fi ght w i th H ar ri s; Count Fi ve, ag ai nst W ar den W alls f oral l ege dlyf ai l i ng to prot ect Sant i ago by housi ng hi m i n the sam e ce l l bl ock as H arri s; Count S i x, ag ai nst Cor re cti onalOffi cer s J i nes and C ox f oral l ege dlyf ai l i ng to pro vi de m edic al tre atm ent a fter th e Cast ro as saul t; and Count Se ven, ag ai nst W alls an d K ey s fo r re ta liat i on . N ot ab ly, non eo fthes e co unt s i nv o l ve d a di spu te be twe en th e par ti es ab o ut the ba si c f ac ts o fe i th erthe fi g ht b etwee n S an ti ag o a nd H ar ri s orthe fight betw een Santiago a n d Ca stro. R ath er, the di s put e c e nt e r e d o n wha th a pp e ne d befo rea nd a fter t h e fights, and the w itness es to the se even ts w ere Sant i ago and the defe nd ant pr i son o ffi ci al s. A ccor dingl y, i den t i fy i nga ddi t i o na l wi tne s s e s wo ul d n o th a v e ma de a di ffer ence.48 N o. 07

- 1219 As f o r the “ su r ve i l l an ce t ape s, ” there is no th i ngi n the record to s ug g es t th ata ny th i ngr el ev an t to the s ur vi ving counts w as c ap tu re d on sur vei l l ance v i deotape. S anti ago bel i eve s there was a s urve i l l ance c am er a o n the ro ute f r o m t h e p ris on ca fet er ia (w h er e t h e figh t w ith H ar ris o cc urred ) to th e i nfi r m ar y a nd a l so a cr o ss fr o m a ho l di ng cel l o utsi de the seg re gat i on uni t. The r ecord d oes not substa nti ate thi s. I t is n ot , in any eve nt, eno ugh to es tabl i s h pr ej ud i c e , wh i c h r e qu i r e s “ a reas onab l el i ke l i hood that the prese nce of counsel w oul d hav e m ade a d iffer ence i n t h e outco m e o fthe l i ti gat i on. ” P rui tt, 50 3 F
. 3d at 659. Specul ati on that s urve i l l ance vi deotape m ightexi st ( seve n y e ar s af t e r the f a c t ) a nd m ightco ntai n re l evantev i dence i s s i m plyto o sl i m a re ed to support a fi nd i ng o fprej ud i ce. I n t he e nd , I r e t ur n t o a c o n c l u d i n g p o i n twe mad e i n P rui tt : The pri nci ple s r ei ter ate d here a re i ntended to en su re that requ ests for pro b o n o cou ns el are resolved ac cord ing to a cons istent fram ew ork c alibr ate d to the nature ofthe disc re ti onar y j ud gm ent c al l ed f orby § 1915 ( e) (1). Theyareno tm e ant t o move t heexe r cis eof

dis cre t i on t owar d re cr ui t m e nt o f coun s e l m or eof

t e n than not, orm or eof t e n than i s n o w t he ca se ; w e re p ea t t h at th e in q u iry is in d ividu a liz ed to the p lai nt iff an d the ca se before the c ourt
. Id. a t 66 1 ( emphas i s adde d)

. F o r th e rea so ns Iha ve e xpla i ne d , t he m aj or i ty’ s deci si on i n thi s ca se m ay have the e ffect ofsugg est i ng to o ur di str i ct j ud ges thatthey ha d b e t t e r “ mov e the e xe r c i s e o f di s c r e t i o n t o ward r e-N o. 07

- 1219 49

cru itm en t of cou ns el m ore often th an not” and “m ore ofte n t h an i s no w the case . ” Id. This w i l l co m e a t a co st to the b ench and baral i ke and w as m ani fest l y not w hat we i nt en ded i n P rui tt
. Fo r al l the f or ego i ng reas ons, Iwould affi rm the j ud gm ent o fthe dist ri ct c ourt
.

3- 29- 10