IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR N EW CASTLE COUN TY

KENNETH T. DEPUTY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. N 12C-05-163 MMJ ) ) DR. J. CONLAN, ) ) Defenda nt. )

Submi tted: Mar

ch 26, 2015 Decided : April 1, 2015 On Plai ntif

f Kenn eth T. De puty’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel

DENIED ORDER Kenneth T. Depu ty, Pro Se , Plaintiff Daniel A . Grif

fith, E squire, S cott F. W

ilcox, E squire, W

hiteford T aylor

& Preston LLC, Attorney s for De fendant JOHNSTON, J.1 Vick v. Dep’t. of Corr, 1986 WL 8003, at *2 (Del. Super.).
2Id.
3 Id. at *1.
4 See Jenkins v. Dover Police Comm’r, 2002 WL 663912 (Del. Super.). By Memorand

um Opinion d ated June 5, 2014, the C ou r t denied Plaintiff’s fourth Motion for

Appointme nt of Couns el. This was Plaintif f’s sixth r equest for appointment of an attorney at State expense. Plaintiff has again move d for

appointment of counse l. Plain tiff stat es that he has made nume

rous unsucc essful att

empts to obtain priv ate counse l on a contingency basis. The Delaw are Supe rior Court has t

he “i nherent a uthority to appoint c ounsel for
an indigen t person i n a civil s uit.” 1 T he Court w ill only appoint coun sel if it is demonstrated

that the pr

isoner does not have m

eaningful access t o the court s by other alte rnativ es. 2 Meaningful access has been interpreted to mean “ either access to an adequatelaw library or

legal assi stance in t

he prepar ation of co mplaints, appea ls, petitions, etc., though the State is vested with discr etio n to select the m ethod by which to implement this con stituti onal guar antee.” 3 The State rarely appoints counsel to prisoner s for civil

claim s. 4 Plaintiff has acce ss to the pri son law lib rary . He suc cessfully appealed the dismissal of his 2007 lawsuit to the Delaware Supreme Court. There i s nothing in therecord to show Plaintiff is be ing denied “ meaningful acc ess” to the Courts. Plain tiff’s instant m

otion again f

ails to dem

onstr ate th e need for

courtap pointed counsel at

State ex pense. D eputy h as not provid ed any new or dif

feren t facts or law in supp ort of his m otion. Plaintiff argues tha

t his case is “c learly

mer ito rious” bec ause it “has been scheduled for trial twi ce..”. Cases are given trial dates as a matter of course. A trial date is by no mea ns an evalua

tion of the m

erits of t he cause o f action. There is no question

that Plaintiff would benefit from the assistanc e of

counsel. Represe ntation

by an a ttorney is virtuall

y alw ays be neficial for every litig ant. However, civil plain

tiffs are not entitl e d to appointm ent of lega

l counsel at State expense. The Sta

te sim ply doe s not

have the resources to supply civil litig ants with attorney s, regardle ss of the purp orted m erits of t he 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 Appointmen

t of Counse l is hereb y DENIED. THE COURT WILL NOT CONSIDER ANY FURTHER MOTIONS OR REQUEST FOR

APPOINTMEN T OF LEGAL COUN SEL. IT IS SO ORDERED. _/s/ Mary M. Johnston

_____________ The Honor

able Mar y M. Johnston