# Chencinski v. Myers

> District Court, S.D. Illinois · December 23, 2019

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10151365

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Illinois
- **Decided:** December 23, 2019
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10151365

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ROBERT CHENCINSKI, )
#B75443, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) Case No. 19-cv-00485-NJR
vs. )
)
PERCY MYERS, M.D., )
WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC., )
SCOTT THOMPSON, and )
ILLINOIS DEPATMENT OF )
CORRECTIONS, )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, Chief Judge:
Plaintiff Robert Chencinski has filed a Motion Requesting an Eye Specialist to be Present
at the Preliminary Injunction Hearing (Doc. 48) and a Motion for Limited Counsel. For the
following reasons both motions are denied.
In his Motion Requesting Eye Specialist, Chencinski asks the Court to recruit an
ophthalmologist to testify regarding his eye condition, blepharospasm, and to present medical
evidence on his behalf. He states that Dr. Myers is not an eye specialist and has not spoken with
the ophthalmologist who has treated him. He claims that the preliminary injunction involves
medical records and requires an assessment of the adequacy of treatment, which will likely require
expert testimony.
Although Chencinski has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, there is not a
statutory provision or constitutional right that directs the appointment of an expert witness at
government expense to testify on a litigant’s behalf. See Brown v. United States, 74 F. App’x 611,
614-15 (7th Cir. 2004). Rule 706 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows the appointment
of a neutral expertwitness if the Court determines that such an expertis necessary to help the trier-
of-fact understand complex information. See Kennedy v. Huibregtse, 831 F.3d 441, 443 (7th Cir.
2016); Ledford v. Sullivan, 105 F.3d 354, 358-359 (7th Cir. 1997). “But [Rule 706] allows
appointment of an expert witness if necessary to help the courtunderstand the issues, not to assist

a party in preparing his case.” Dobbey v. Carter, 734 F. App’x 362, 364-65 (7th Cir. 2018); see
also Turner v. Cox, 569 F. App’x 463, 468 (7th Cir. 2014).
Because Chencinski is not entitled to have an expert witness “testify on his behalf in order
to establish a fundamental element of his case[,]”Brown, 74 F. App’x at 614,at the government’s
expense and, given the early stage of litigation, there is nothing to suggest that Chencinski’s claims
will require the assistance of a neutral expert in order for the trier-of-fact to understand the
complexity of the issues in this case, the motion is denied. See Grieveson v. Anderson, 538 F.3d
763, 779 (7th Cir. 2008); Watts v. Monroe, No. 15-cv-0778, 2017 WL 2794286, at *5 (S.D. Ill.
June, 28, 2017) (expert testimony not necessarily required for a deliberate indifference claim).

Chencinski also has filed a third motion for the recruitment of counsel. In the motion, he
requests for the recruitment of counsel for the limited purposes of helping him during the
preliminary injunction hearing and to draft an amended complaint. As discussed in the Order
denying his Motion for Reconsideration for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 44) and the Merit
Review Order (Doc. 8), as a litigant in a civil case, Chencinskihas no right to counsel. Romanelli
v. Suliene, 615 F.3d 847, 851 (7th Cir. 2010). Of course, a district court “may request an attorney
to represent any person unable to afford counsel.” 28 U.S.C.§ 1915 (e)(1). Recruitment of counsel
lies within the sound discretion of the Court. See Pruitt v.Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654 (7th Cir. 2007)
(citing Johnson v. Doughty, 433 F.3d 1001, 1006 (7th Cir.2006)).
Nothing in this case has changed since the Court denied his previous request for counsel
that would allow the Court to conclude that Chencinski could not fairly litigate his claims without
counsel at this stage.! At the preliminary injunction hearing, Chencinski will be given the
opportunity to question witnesses and present his case.” His pleadings continue to indicate that he
can effectively communicate and follow directions from this Court, and so the Court finds he is
competent to litigate his own claims.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion Requesting Eye Specialist (Doc. 48) and
Motion for Limited Counsel (Doc. 49) are DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 12/23/2019 Tl oe }

NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
Chief U.S. District Judge

' The test established in Pruitt is “whether the difficulty of the case—factually and legally—exceeds the particular
plaintiff’s capacity as a layperson to coherently present it to the judge or jury himself.” Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 655.
The Court notes that Chencinski claims he cannot call witnesses for the preliminary injunction hearing, but he may
call witnesses at the hearing by filing a motion and submitting a list with the Court prior to the hearing.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10151365. Public record. Not legal advice.