Hines v. Sammons

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
KEVIN L. HINES, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) C.A. No.: N23C-04-166 SPL
)
TED SAMMONS, LUVENIA )
ERVIN, CHARLENE STREGLES, )
and GAUDENZIA )
REHABILITATION FACILITY, )
)
Defendants. )
Upon Plaintiff’s Motion
for the Appointment of Counsel
DENIED
ORDER
This 26th day of February 2024, upon consideration of Plaintiff’s, Kevin L.
Hines (“Hines”) “Motion for the Appointment of Counsel,”1 it appears to the Court
that:
1. Hines filed his complaint in this Court on April 20, 2023, alleging
claims of negligence, assault, medical malpractice, and sexual assault.2
1
D.I. 42.
2
D.I. 1 (“Compl.”) ¶¶ 36, 37, 39.
2. On May 12, 2023, the Court granted Hines’ application to proceed in
forma pauperis.3
3. On August 24, 2023, the Court dismissed Hines federal claims.4
Defendants answered Hines’ complaint,5 and discovery commenced.6 On February
19, 2024, the Court directed the parties to confer on the status of discovery and to
inform the Court of any disputes.7
4. On February 21, 2024, Hines filed the “Motion for the Appointment of
Counsel” presently before the Court.8 He contends that: (1) he “is unable to afford
counsel;” (2) “the issues involved in this case are complex;” and (3) as an
incarcerated inmate he has limited access to the law library.9
5. “Indigent persons who are charged with a criminal offense have a right
to be represented at trial by an attorney provided at public expense.”10 “Courts have
been reluctant, however, to extend that right to indigent plaintiffs in civil cases, and
3
D.I. 9.
4
D.I. 25.
5
D.I. 26.
6
D.I. 27, 28, 30, 32, 26.
7
D.I. 41.
8
D.I. 42.
9
Id.
10
Potter v. State, 547 A.2d 595 (Del. 1988) (citing Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S.
335, 342-45 (1963)).
have almost universally declined to do so.” 11 Delaware Courts consider “Motions
for Appointment of Counsel under the more narrow framework of the 14 th
Amendment Due Process Clause.”12 Absent “special and compelling
circumstances,” the Constitution does not require the appointment of counsel in civil
litigation.13 This Court applies “the three-prong due process analysis set forth by the
United States Supreme Court in Matthews v. Eldridge.”14 Under this analysis, this
Court must balance “(1) the private interests at stake, (2) the government’s interest
and (3) the risk that the procedure without counsel would lead to erroneous
results.”15
6. The private interest at stake here is Hines’ right to meaningful access to
the Courts. “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.”16 Hines does not contend that
his access to the Court has been restricted. In fact, he filed his complaint and has
11
Miller v. Taylor, 2010 WL 1731853, at *1 (Del. Super. Ct. Apr. 28, 2010) (internal
citations omitted).
12
Id.13
Id.14
Id. (citing Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 321 (1976)).
15
Id. (internal citations omitted).
16
Id. (cleaned up).
diligently pursed discovery. It is evident that Hines can comply with Court rules and
procedures and that the appointment of counsel is not necessary to ensure his
meaningful access.17
7. As to the second Matthews factor, the government’s interest, the Court
must consider the State’s “strong interest” in “maintaining order and discipline in its
penal institutions.”18 “This strong interest, when considered in the context of the
extraordinary remedy Plaintiff seeks, means that Plaintiff must make a very strong
showing that his private interest in meaningful access outweighs this strong and
well-recognized State interest.”19 Hines fails to make such a showing here; there is
nothing that distinguishes his case from the volume of cases brought in this Court
by unrepresented litigants.20
8. As to the third Matthews factor, the risk of erroneous results in the
absence of counsel, the alleged “complexity of the matter and the risk of a wrong
outcome do not overcome the State’s strong interest in maintaining order and
discipline in its penal institutions.”21 Importantly, as evidenced by his diligent
engagement in the discovery process, Hines is capable of advancing his claims.
17
Id.18
Id. (cleaned up).
19
Id. (internal citation omitted).
20
Id.21
Id. at *2.
9. For the foregoing reasons, Hines’ Motion for the Appointment of
Counsel is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________________
Sean P. Lugg, Judge