Pohlman v. Hormann et al, No. 3:2014cv01483 - Document 92 (D. Or. 2015)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Plaintiff's Motion 76 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The court now construes Claim 1 as alleging the liability of Officers Wilber and Harris for Plaintiff's April 25, 2014 injury and ORDE RS plaintiff to show cause why that claim should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Plaintiff has thirty (30) days from the date of this Order to submit documentary evidence showing he properly exhausted his administrati ve remedies regarding his April 25, 2014 Injury. Plaintiff's Second Motion for Reconsideration 79 is mooted by this Order and is therefore DENIED as well. The following motions are STAYED pending resolution of whether Claim 1 must be dismiss ed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies: Plaintiff's Motions to Compel: 38 , 56 , 57 , 63 , 64 ; Plaintiff's Motions to Add Supplemental Parties and Motions for Joinder 52 , 53 ; Plaintiff's Summary Judgment Motions ( 39 , 40 , 41 ); Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel 88 ; and Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction 89 . Additionally, the deadline for Defendants to file an Answer to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint 87 is also STAYED. Signed on 9/30/2015 by Magistrate Judge Paul Papak. (gw)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Pohlman v. Hormann et al Doc. 92 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON MARLIN BRANDT POHLMAN, Plaintiff, v. 3: 14-cv-1483-PK KEVIN HORMANN, COLLETT PETERS, R. LADEBY, C. COLEMAN, W. BAYSINGER, C. OLSON, C. DIGULIO, D. FUZI, J. SMITH, OPINION AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Defendants. PAP AK, Magistrate Judge: Plaintiff pro se Marlin Brandt Pohlman filed this action on September 17, 2014 against defendants Kevin Hormann, Colette Peters, R. Ladeby, C. Coleman, W. Baysinger, C. Olson, C. DiGulio, D. Fuzi, and J. Smith. This court has federal-question jurisdiction over Plaintiffs claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Now before the court is Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration (#76) ("Plaintiffs Motion"). Plaintiff contends the court erred in its August 4, 2015 Order (#72) granting, in part, Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (#60) and Ordering Plaintiff to strike Claim 1 from his Proposed Amended Complaint (#37-1). For the reasons provided below, Plaintiffs Motion is granted in part and denied in part. ORDER Page I1 Dockets.Justia.com BACKGROUND By and through his Complaint (#2), Plaintiff alleges the liability of each defendant under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of his First, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. On February 25, 20.15, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint (#37) and a Proposed Amended Complaint (#37-1) naming new defendants and asserting new claims. While Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint was still under advisement, Defendants moved for partial summary judgment (#60) on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment included a request for summary judgment on all of the new claims in Plaintiffs Proposed Amended Complaint. See Defs.' Mot. Partial Summ. J. 5. The court granted Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in part and denied it in part. See August 4, 2015 Opinion and Order 17 [hereinafter Order]. The court entered summary judgment in favor of defendants Hormann, Peters, Ladeby, Coleman, Baysinger, and Olson on Claims 3 and 4 of Plaintiffs Complaint. Order 18-19. The court also entered summary judgment in favor of Defendants on the portions Plaintiffs Proposed Amended Complaint that alleged new facts and new theories of liability in support of claims that predated the filing of Plaintiffs initial Complaint. Order 18. The court then ordered Plaintiff to strike Claim 1 from his Proposed Amended Complaint, fmding that Plaintiff had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to the events underlying that claim. Order 18-19. DISCUSSION Plaintiff contends the court erred in its August 4, 2015 Order to the extent that Order granted Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Plaintiff argues that he adequately exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to all of his claims. Pl.'s Mot. for ORDER Page I2 Reconsideration 4. Plaintiff further contends the court misconstrued Claim 1 of his Complaint and therefore failed to consider whether he exhausted his administrative remedies in relation to the events underlying that claim. 1 Plaintiffs Complaint is not a model of clarity. However, even under the most liberal reading of the Complaint, Plaintiff clearly failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to Claims 3 and 4. Therefore Plaintiffs Motion is denied to the extent it challenges the court's grant of summary judgment on those claims. In adjudicating Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, the court construed Claim 1 of Plaintiffs Complaint as merely alleging an April25 , 2014 injury that provides the factual basis for his remaining claims. The court recognizes that it has "an obligation where the petitioner is pro se, particularly in civil rights cases, to construe the pleadings liberally and to afford the petitioner the benefit of any doubt." Bretz v. Kelman , 773 F .2d 1026, 1027 n.1 (9th Cir. 1985) (citing Jones v. Community Redevelopment Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir.1984)). With this obligation in mind, the court grants Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration to the extent it challenges the court's construction of Claim 1. The court now construes Claim 1 as alleging the liability of Officer Wilber and Officer Harris for Plaintiffs April25 , 2014 injury. Officer Wilber and Officer Harris have not been properly joined as defendants in this suit. However, Plaintiffs April25 , 2014 injury is inextricably intertwined with all of Plaintiffs claims for relief. Defendants therefore submitted a detailed record of Plaintiffs administrative grievances regarding his April 25, 2014 injury in support of their Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. From this documentary evidence, it appears that Plaintiff failed to properly exhaust 1 Plaintiff's Motion is somewhat ambiguous on this point, but the court has a duty to construe prose motions liberally. See, e.g., Bernhardt v. Los Angeles Cnty., 339 F.3d 920, 925 {9th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted) ("Courts have a duty to construe prose pleadings liberally, including prose motions as well as complaints."). ORDER Page I3 his administrative remedies with respect to his April25 , 2014 injury. Therefore, the court orders Plaintiff to show cause why Claim }-alleging the liability of Officers Wilber and Harris for Plaintiffs April 25, 2014 injury-should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. CONCLUSION For the forgoing reasons, Plaintiffs Motion (#76) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiffs Motion is GRANTED to the extent it requests the court to reconsider its construction of Claim 1 and its related order requiring Plaintiff to strike Claim 1. The court now construes Claim 1 as alleging the liability of Officers Wilber and Harris for Plaintiffs April25 , 2014 injury and ORDERS plaintiff to show cause why that claim should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Plaintiffhas thirty (30) days from the date of this Order to submit documentary evidence showing he properly exhausted his administrative remedies regarding his April25 , 2014 Injury. Plaintiffs Motion (#76) is DENIED to the extent it challenges any aspect to the court's August 4, 2014 Order other than the court's construction of Claim 1 and related order requiring Plaintiff to strike Claim 1. Plaintiffs Second Motion for Reconsideration (#79) is mooted by this Order and is therefore DENIED as well. II II II II II II ORDER Page I4 The following motions are STAYED pending resolution of whether Claim 1 must be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies: Plaintiffs Motions to Compel: (#38), (#56), (#57), (#63), (#64); Plaintiffs Motions to Add Supplemental Parties and Motions for Joinder (#52), (#53); Plaintiffs Summary Judgment Motions (#39, #40, #41); Plaintiffs Motion for Appointment of Counsel (#88); and Plaintiffs Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (#89). Additionally, the deadline for Defendants to file an Answer to Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint (#87) is also STAYED. Dated this 30th Day of September, 2015 . I-'Ionorable Paul Papak United States Magistrate Judge ORDER Page I5
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
