Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00388/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00388-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Kenneth Lee Nowlin (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was filed 

on March 7, 2011. (ECF No. 1.) On August 1, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting a status 

update and for the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 21.) 

Generally, because of the Court’s heavy caseload it does not provide status updates on 

cases. However, the Court notifies Plaintiff that it received his service documents and his case is 

now in the service of process stage. On July 25, 2013, the Court issued a service order directing 

the United States Marshal to serve the complaint on Defendants. (ECF No. 17.) The deadline for 

service is November 25, 2013. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request is now moot. If the Plaintiff is 

requesting additional status information then this request is denied.

As to Plaintiff’s request for counsel, Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to the 

appointment of counsel in this action. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009); 

Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981). The Court may request the voluntary 

assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), but it will do so only if exceptional 

circumstances exist. Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970; Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th 

KENNETH LEE NOWLIN,

Plaintiff

v.

KNICKERBOXER, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE No. 1:11-cv-00388-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST FOR STATUS AS MOOT

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR COUNSEL

(ECF No. 21)

Case 1:11-cv-00388-AWI-SAB Document 22 Filed 08/22/13 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Cir. 1986). In making this determination, the Court must evaluate the likelihood of success on the 

merits and the ability of Plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the 

legal issues involved. Palmer at 970 (citation and quotation marks omitted); Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 

1331. Neither consideration is dispositive and they must be viewed together. Palmer, 560 F.3d at 

970 (citation and quotation marks omitted); Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1331. 

In the present case, the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances exist at 

this time. Even if it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made 

serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. The 

Court is faced with similar cases almost daily. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Plaintiff’s motion for a status update is DENIED as MOOT; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 21, 2013 _ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

427h8ijefekbei

Case 1:11-cv-00388-AWI-SAB Document 22 Filed 08/22/13 Page 2 of 2