Submitted: May 24, 2017
Motion for Reargument of the Court's Decision Denying
Appointment of Counsel DENIED
Plaintiffs Motion to Amend DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
M. Johnston, Judge
filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel. The Court denied
the motion by Order dated December 8, 2016. The Court found:
"Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate entitlement to
court-appointed civil counsel, pursuant to the required
predicate factors as set forth m Matthews v.
Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 324 (1976)." Plaintiff has
filed correspondence that the Court has deemed a Motion for
Reargument of the Court's Decision Denying Appointment of
specific page citation to Matthews should have been
424 U.S. at 335. In Matthews, the United States
Supreme Court held: "More precisely, our prior decisions
indicate that identification of the specific dictates of due
process generally requires consideration of three distinct
factors: First, the private interest that will be affected by
the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous
deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and
the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute
procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government's
interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and
administrative burdens that the additional or substitute
procedural requirement would entail."
Lassiter v. Department of Social Services, 452 U.S.
126 (1981), the United States Supreme Court ruled: "In
sum, the Court's precedents speak with one voice about
what 'fundamental fairness' has meant when the Court
has considered the right to appointed counsel, and we thus
draw from them the presumption that an indigent litigant has
a right to appointed counsel only when, if he loses, he may
be deprived of his physical liberty. It is against this
presumption that all the other elements in the due process
decision must be measured." Id. at 127.
will not be deprived of physical liberty if he does not
prevail in this civil litigation. Plaintiff has failed to
demonstrate that any of the other Matthews factors
warrant appointment of counsel at State expense.
purpose of moving for reargument is to seek reconsideration
of findings of fact, conclusions of law, or judgment of
Reargument usually will be denied unless the moving party
demonstrates that the Court overlooked a precedent or legal
principle that would have a controlling effect, or that it
has misapprehended the law or the facts in a manner affecting
the outcome of the decision. "A motion for reargument
should not be used merely to rehash the arguments already
decided by the court."
Court has reviewed and considered Plaintiffs submissions. The
Court did not overlook a controlling precedent or legal
principle, or misapprehend the law or the facts in a manner
affecting the outcome of the decision.
Plaintiffs Motion for Reargument of the Court's Decision
Denying Appointment of Counsel is hereby DENIED.
has moved to amend his complaint to add two individual
defendants. Responsive pleadings have been filed in this
case. At this stage of the proceedings, pursuant to Superior
Court Civil Rule 15(a), "a party may amend the
party's pleading only by leave of court or by written
consent of the adverse party; and leave shall be freely given
when justice so requires." Although Plaintiff has listed
the two parties he wishes to add, Plaintiff has not attached
a proposed amended complaint that "indicate[s] plainly