Dickens v. Coupe
N16C-05-255 MMJ
| Del. Super. Ct. | Jun 27, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Lawrence Dickens is litigating a civil claim against several state employees and moved for court‑appointed counsel; the court denied that motion on Dec. 8, 2016.
- Dickens filed a motion for reargument of the denial of appointed counsel; the court treated a later correspondence as that motion.
- The court analyzed the appointment request under the Matthews due‑process balancing test and the presumption in Lassiter regarding appointed counsel in civil cases affecting liberty.
- The court concluded Dickens will not face loss of physical liberty if he loses this civil suit and found Dickens did not satisfy Matthews’ other factors to require appointed counsel.
- Dickens also moved to amend his complaint to add two individual defendants; responsive pleadings have already been filed.
- The court denied the motion to amend without prejudice because Dickens failed to submit a proposed amended complaint complying with Superior Court Civ. R. 15(aa) specifying jurisdictional bases and the claims against each new defendant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court must appoint counsel for Dickens | Dickens sought appointed counsel for his civil action (argues need for counsel) | Defendants implicitly oppose appointment; court applies legal standards | Denied: Dickens not entitled to appointed counsel under Matthews/Lassiter |
| Whether court overlooked authority or misapprehended facts such that reargument is warranted | Dickens asserted the court erred in denying appointment and asked reconsideration | Court maintained it did not overlook controlling precedent/facts | Denied: reargument not meritorious |
| Whether Dickens may amend complaint to add two individuals at this stage | Dickens identified additional defendants and requested leave to amend | Defendants have filed responsive pleadings; court requires a proposed amended complaint per Rule 15(aa) | Denied without prejudice: Dickens must submit a compliant proposed amended complaint |
| Proper procedural standard for motions for reargument and amendment | Dickens sought reconsideration and amendment under applicable rules | Court relied on precedent limiting reargument and Rule 15(a)/(aa) for amendments | Court applied standards and denied relief as described above |
Key Cases Cited
- Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (establishes three‑factor due‑process balancing test for appointment of counsel in civil proceedings)
- Lassiter v. Department of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18 (1981) (presumes a right to appointed counsel only when loss of physical liberty is possible)