With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the difficulty of the case and the plaintiffs ability to litigate it on his own. See Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 655 (7th Cir.2007) (en banc). The district judge did that here. She noted that Barrett’s claims concerning the drug overdoses were straightforward and involved elementary factual disputes. She also noted that Barrett had merely asserted — but never shown — that mental-health issues impaired his ability to represent himself. See Olson v. Morgan, 750 F.3d 708, 711-12 (7th Cir.2014) (upholding order denying motion to recruit counsel where plaintiff had not explained why mental-health “conditions would prevent him from coherently presenting his case”). Moreover, it’s clear to us that assistance of counsel would not have made a difference here. See Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 659 (<HOLDING>). Barrett argues that counsel would have found

A: holding the denial of a proper question is always reversible error
B: holding the denial of a bill of particulars was not reversible error because it failed to cause the defendant any prejudice
C: holding that denial of untimely request was not abuse of discretion
D: holding that a denial of a request for pro bono counsel is not reversible unless the plaintiff shows prejudice
D.