But that is not an issue for the district court to consider. Navejar, 718 F.3d at 696 (“Pruitt nowhere suggests that a district court should consider whether recruiting counsel would affect the outcome of a case; instead, that inquiry is reserved for the appellate court’s review for prejudice.”). In- this respect, the law in this circuit appears significantly more favorable to indigent litigants than the law in other circuits, which generally allow a more searching evaluation of the merits before counsel is appointed. See, e.g., Cookish v. Cunningham, 787 F.2d 1, 2-3 (1st Cir. 1986) (“That the plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to state a claim in the complaint does not in and of itself require the appointment of counsel.”); Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 61 (2d Cir. 1986) (<HOLDING>); Montgomery v. Pinchak, 294 F.3d 492, 501 (3d
holding that  best interest of the child standard should be used in deciding whether to grant a paternity petition holding that the best interest of the child standard should be used in deciding whether to grant a paternity petition holding that in order to determine whether disqualification of plaintiffs attorney is appropriate because of a previous attorneyclient relationship he had with the defendant the court must determine whether confidential information was passed from client to attorney holding that in deciding whether to request an attorney to represent an indigent plaintiff they should first determine whether the indigents position was likely to be of substance holding courts have inherent authority to compel compensation for an attorney appointed to represent an indigent defendant