Whether the appellate courts should apply case law established under Fed.R.Evid. 706 to an indigent party's request for the appointment of pro bono counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(1)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the appellate courts should apply case law established under Fed.R.Evid. 706, which denies the appointment of expert witnesses because of a party's IFP status, to an indigent party's request for the appointment of ; pro bono counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $1915(e)(1). : 2. Whether appellate courts are obliged to address a party's allegation that the opposing party's expert reports were faulty, regardless of the burden of proof at summary judgment, and whether faulty reports should be allowed to establish undisputed facts. 3. Whether lower courts should take judicial notice of medical facts at summary judgment, without the interpretation of an expert witness, when the court is supplied with the necessary information. PARTIES ; The Petitioner is Robert JW McCleland, an indigent, pro se prisoner in the Colorado Department of Corrections ("coc") . The Respondents are Rick Raemisch, former Director of the CDOC; Renae Jordan, former Director of Clinical , Services for the CDOC; Susan Tiona, former Chief Medical Officer for the CDOC; Dayna Johnson, former Health Services Administrator for the Buena Vista Correctional Complex ("BVCC"); Deborah Borrego, former Medical Provider for the BVCC; and Joanne McGrew, former contract Medical Provider for the BVCC.