Boyer v. Department of Corrections

• Court: Superior Court of Delaware
• Decided: January 9, 2019
• Docket: N18M-09-140 RRC
• Status: Published

Opinion

SUPERIOR COURT oFTHE

STATE OF DEL.AWARE

NEW cAsTLE couNTY couRTHousE 500 NoRTH KING STREET, SulTE 10400 Wll_MlNGToN. DELAWARE 19801-3733

TEl_EPHoNE (302) 255-0664

RlCHARD R. COOCH

RESIDENT JUDGE

Donald Boyer

SBI# 00082420

J ames T. Vaughn Correctional Center 1181 Paddock Road

Smyrna, Delaware 19977

Petitioner

Carla A. K. Jarosz, Esquire Deputy Attorney General Department of Justice

820 North French Street, 6th Fl. Wilmington, Delaware 19801 Attorney for Respondents

Re: Donald Bover v. Department of Corrections, et al. C.A. No. N18M-09-140 RRC

Submitted: December 26, 2018 Decided: January 9, 2019

On Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel. DENIED

Dear Mr. Boyer and Ms. Jarosz:

The Court has received Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel. For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner’s Motion is denied.

The matter before the Court is a civil suit, and as such, Petitioner is not entitled as a matter of right to court-appointed counsel.l Although not required to appoint

l See, e.g., Lassiter v. Dep ’t of Soc. Serv., 452 U.S. 18 (1981) (“When an indigent civil litigant could not possibly be deprived of his personal liberty as a direct result of the litigation, the Constitution does not require the appointment of counsel”); Anderson v. Tingle, 2011 WL 3907125, at *3 (Del. Super. Ct. Aug. 30, 2011) (“The instant case is a civil case; Plaintiff is not entitled, as a matter of right, to the appointment of counsel”) (citations omitted); State Ins. Cov.

counsel in a civil case, the Court does have “inherent authority” to do so.2 The Court seldom exercises this authority however.3 lt is “generally appropriate only When the prisoner clearly demonstrates a deprivation of his constitutional right of meaningful access to the court.4 Delaware Courts have interpreted meaningful access mean either “access to an adequate law library” or access “to legal assistance in the preparation of complaints, appeals, petitions, etc.”5

Petitioner does not allege he lacks access to the prison’s law library. Instead he alleges that the law library staff “Will not prepare motions, briefs, or research issues[.]”6 Such a situation does not prevent access to the law library, nor does it prevent meaningful access to the courts. Although Petitioner’s “chances of success may be diminished without the assistance of counsel, [or other persons,] it cannot be said that the State denied him ‘meaningful access to the courts.”’7

Therefore, Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED. Very truly yours, RRC cc: Prothonotary

O_/j'z`ce v. Rainer, 2010 WL 2541665 (Del. Super. Ct. June 22, 2010) (“Courts have been reluctant, however, to extend [the right to counsel] to indigent litigants in civil cases, and have almost universally declined to do so.”) (citations omitted); Depuly v. Conlan, 2008 WL 495 791 (Del. Super. Ct. Feb. 13, 2008) (finding that indigent plaintiff in civil rights suit against various prison officials did not demonstrate that he Was denied “meaningful access” to the Court, such that appointment of counsel would be Warranted); Jenkins v. Dover Police Comm'r, 2002 WL 663912 (Del. Super. Ct. Apr.5, 2002) (declining to appoint counsel for indigent plaintiff in a civil suit Where plaintiff did not present “special and compelling circumstances” to overcome the State's strong countervailing interest in maintaining order and discipline in its penal institutions). 2 Vick v. Dep't ofCorr., 1986 WL 8003, at *2 (Del. Super. Ct. Apr. 14, 1996).

3 Conlan, 2008 WL 495791, at * 1 (“The State rarely appoints counsel to prisoners for civil claims.”).

4 Id.

5 Sands v. Delaware Dep ’t ofCorr., 2017 WL 3311234, at *1 (Del. Super Ct. Aug. 2, 2017) (citing Vick, 1986 WL 8003, at *2).

6 Def.’s Mot. for Appointment of Counsel, D.I. 16, at 1 118 (Dec. 26, 2018).

7 Anderson, 2011 WL 3907125, at *3 (quoting Vick, 1986 WL 8003, at *2).