his case’s complex discovery rules all strongly suggest that Montgomery was unable to properly pursue a factual investigation and this factor thus weighs in favor of the appointment of counsel. D. The Need for Expert Medical Testimony This Court has recognized the need for expert testimony in proving á claim based on medical injury. See Parham, 126 F.3d at 460 (“A medical malpractice case involves complex facts and medical records that even most lawyers struggle to comprehend. Hence, most of these cases require expert testimony.”). Montgomery presents a case that would especially benefit from expert testimony because he lacks the medical records that he might otherwise use to demonstrate his alleged injury to a jury. See Boring v. Kozakiewicz, 833 F.2d 468, 473-74 (3d Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). It is clear that Montgomery himself cannot
holding that in a prisoners eighth amendment claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need expert testimony is necessary when the seriousness of injury or illness would not be apparent to a lay person holding that deliberate indifference to prisoners medical needs is cruel and unusual punishment holding that the eighth amendment protects prisoners only from deliberate indifference to their serious medical needs holding that in order to state a violation of the eighth amendment an inmate must demonstrate that prison officials showed deliberate indifference to serious medical needs holding that deliberate indifference to a serious medical need establishes an eighth amendment violation