UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS NEED TO RELIABLY APPOINT NEUTRAL MEDICAL EXPERTS IN INDIVIDUAL PRISONER PRO SE §42 USC 1983 MEDICAL CARE CASES WITH COGNIZABLE CLAIMS IN WHICH DISPUTED MEDICAL FACTS HAVE BEEN PRESENTED TO THE COURT IN ORDER TO PREVENT PREORDAINED NEGATIVE OUTCOMES. THESE EXPERTS WILL ASSURE THE PRISONER PLAINTIFFS' ACCESS TO COURT UNDER THE FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ACCESS TO A CIVIL JURY UNDER THE SEVENTH AMENDMENT.

INDIVIDUAL PRISONER PRO SE §42 USC 1983 MEDICAL CARE CASES WITH COGNIZABLE CLAIMS IN WHICH DISPUTED MEDICAL FACTS HAVE BEEN PRESENTED TO THE COURT ARE EXTRAORDINARY. THEY ARE EXTRAORDINARY BECAUSE THEY ARE RARE; AND BECAUSE THEY HAVE SURVIVED 28 USC §1915 A(a-b(1)) SCREENING, PRISON LITIGATION REFORM ACT EXHAUSTION AND FAILED ATTTEMPTS AT SETTLEMENT. NEUTRAL MEDICAL EXPERT OPINION IS REQUIRED TO ADVISE DISTRICT COURTS CONCERNING THE VIABILITY OF THE MEDICAL POSITIONS OF BOTH SIDES IN THE FACE OF MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND/OR MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

Whether United States district courts need to reliably appoint neutral medical experts in individual prisoner pro se §42 USC 1983 medical care cases with cognizable claims in which disputed medical facts have been presented to the court in order to prevent preordained negative outcomes and assure prisoner plaintiffs' access to court under the First and Fourteenth Amendments and access to a civil jury under the Seventh Amendment