IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
KENNETH T. DEPUTY, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) C.A. No. N12C-05-163 MMJ
)
)
DR. J. CONLAN, )
)
Defendant. )
Submitted: March 26, 2015
Decided: April 1, 2015
On Plaintiff Kenneth T. Deputy’s
Motion for Appointment of Counsel
DENIED
ORDER
Kenneth T. Deputy, Pro Se, Plaintiff
Daniel A. Griffith, Esquire, Scott F. Wilcox, Esquire, Whiteford Taylor & Preston
LLC, Attorneys for Defendant
JOHNSTON, J.
By Memorandum Opinion dated June 5, 2014, the Court denied Plaintiff’s
fourth Motion for Appointment of Counsel. This was Plaintiff’s sixth request for
appointment of an attorney at State expense.
Plaintiff has again moved for appointment of counsel. Plaintiff states that he
has made numerous unsuccessful attempts to obtain private counsel on a contingency
basis.
The Delaware Superior Court has the “inherent authority to appoint counsel for
an indigent person in a civil suit.”1 The Court will only appoint counsel if it is
demonstrated that the prisoner does not have meaningful access to the courts by other
alternatives.2 Meaningful access has been interpreted to mean “either access to an
adequate law library or legal assistance in the preparation of complaints, appeals,
petitions, etc., though the State is vested with discretion to select the method by
which to implement this constitutional guarantee.”3 The State rarely appoints counsel
to prisoners for civil claims.4
Plaintiff has access to the prison law library. He successfully appealed the
dismissal of his 2007 lawsuit to the Delaware Supreme Court. There is nothing in the
1
Vick v. Dep’t. of Corr, 1986 WL 8003, at *2 (Del. Super.).
2
Id.
3
Id. at *1.
4
See Jenkins v. Dover Police Comm’r, 2002 WL 663912 (Del. Super.).
record to show Plaintiff is being denied “meaningful access” to the Courts.
Plaintiff’s instant motion again fails to demonstrate the need for court-
appointed counsel at State expense. Deputy has not provided any new or different
facts or law in support of his motion.
Plaintiff argues that his case is “clearly meritorious” because it “has been
scheduled for trial twice..”. Cases are given trial dates as a matter of course. A trial
date is by no means an evaluation of the merits of the cause of action.
There is no question that Plaintiff would benefit from the assistance of counsel.
Representation by an attorney is virtually always beneficial for every litigant.
However, civil plaintiffs are not entitled to appointment of legal counsel at State
expense. The State simply does not have the resources to supply civil litigants with
attorneys, regardless of the purported merits of the case. Further, any plaintiff who
cannot find a private attorney to represent the plaintiff in a personal injury case,
should seriously consider whether the claim is financially and practically viable.
THEREFORE, Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel is hereby
DENIED. THE COURT WILL NOT CONSIDER ANY FURTHER MOTIONS
OR REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF LEGAL COUNSEL.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_/s/ Mary M. Johnston_____________
The Honorable Mary M. Johnston