Hyman v. Rickman Et Al.

Background

A prisoner at the Stateville Correctional Center sued prison officials saying they failed to provide proper treatment for his glaucoma, a condition that threatened his sight. He says he did not see an eye doctor for four months, did not get prescribed medicine for eight months, and later had to push guards to give him medication; his eyes suffered permanent injury. The District Court granted summary judgment for the defendants at first; the Court of Appeals reversed in part and sent one claim — that guards intentionally denied medication — back for trial.

Reasoning

The central question raised was whether the trial court should have appointed a lawyer for the indigent prisoner under the rule that allows appointment when someone cannot afford counsel. On remand the District Court denied the request for appointed counsel, the prisoner represented himself at two trials, and a jury ultimately found for the officer accused of withholding medicine. The Supreme Court declined to review the case, so the lower courts’ handling and the trial result remain in place.

Real world impact

Because the Court refused review, the decision leaves in place the trial court’s discretion over appointing lawyers in similar prison civil-rights suits. Indigent prisoners who seek a lawyer in comparable cases will continue to depend on local judges’ choices rather than a national rule. The dissent warned that uneven standards among appeals courts could affect enforcement of medical care rights in prisons.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Blackmun (joined by two colleagues) dissented from the denial of review, arguing other circuits would have appointed counsel and that the prisoner may have been prejudiced without counsel who could have added doctors and expert testimony.