Pohlman v. Hormann et al

Filing 112

OPINION & ORDER: Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment 39 is Denied. Additionally, Plaintiffs First Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 40 and Plaintiff's Second Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 41 are also Denied. Signed on 1/22/16 by Magistrate Judge Paul Papak. (gm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
MARLIN BRANDT POHLMAN,
Plaintiff,

v.

3: 14-cv-1483-PK

DR. CHRISTOPHER DIGULIO, DR.
DANIELLE FUZI, OFFICER JOHN SMITH,
NURSE CARTER, NURSE K.
RICHARDSON, NURSE LANDAVERDE,
NURSE CLEMENTS, JOE CAPPS, MARK
NOOTH, and STATE OF OREGON

OPINION AND ORDER

Defendants.

PAPAK, Magistrate Judge:
Plaintiff Marlin Brandt Pohlman filed this pro se action in Jonna pauperis on September
17, 2014. Now before the court are Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (#39), Plaintiffs
First Motion for Partial Summaiy Judgment (#40), and Plaintiffs Second Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment (#41) (collectively, "Plaintiffs Motions"). For the reasons provided below,
Plaintiffs Motions are denied.

LEGAL STANDARD
Summary judgment is appropriate "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute
as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(a). A party taking the position that a material fact either "cannot be or is genuinely disputed"
must support that position either by citation to specific evidence of record "including
depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations
(including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or

OPINION AND ORDER-PAGE 1

other materials," by showing that the evidence of record does not establish either the presence or
absence of such a dispute, or by showing that an opposing party is unable to produce sufficient
admissible evidence to establish the presence or absence of such a dispute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
The substantive law governing a claim or defense determines whether a fact is material. See
1'1foreland v. Las Vegas }vfetro. Police Dep't, 159 F.3d 365, 369 (9th Cir. 1998).
Summary judgment is not proper if material factual issues exist for trial. See, e.g.,
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 318, 322 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.
242, 248 (1986); Warren v. City of Carlsbad, 58 F.3d 439, 441 (9th Cir. 1995). In evaluating a
motion for summary judgment, the district comis of the United States must draw all reasonable
inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, and may neither make credibility determinations nor
perform any weighing of the evidence. See, e.g., Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc.,
530 U.S. 133, 150 (2000); Lytle v. Household Jvfjg., Inc., 494 U.S. 545, 554-55 (1990).

DISCUSSION
I.

Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (#39) is denied. Plaintiff posits the following

four arguments in support of that motion: (1) Defendants failed to comply with the discovery
deadline set by the comi, (2) Defendants failed to respond to Plaintiff's discovery requests, (3)
Plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies in satisfaction of the Prison Litigation Reform
Act ("PLRA"), and (4) Defendants' second and third affirmative defenses are inapplicable. None
of those arguments entitle Plaintiff to summary judgment.
Defendants have not failed to comply with the discovery deadline set by the court. The
comi initially ordered that discovery be completed by March 2, 2015. See Scheduling Order
(#27). However, on February 27, 2015, the court extended the discovery deadline to May 15,

OPINION AND ORDER-PAGE 2

2015. See Order (#48). Then, on May 7, 2015, Defendants moved the court for an order staying
the discovery deadline pending resolution of their Motion for Summary Judgment. See Mot. for
Stay (#59). 1 The court granted Defendants' Motion and stayed the discovery deadline. See
Order (#65). The comt lifted the stay on August 4, 2015. See Order (#72). However, on
September 14, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (#87),joining additional
claims and defendants. Moreover, on January 20, 2016, this comt issued an Opinion and Order
(#108) granting in pmt and denying in pa1t Plaintiffs Motion to Amend (#52, #53) and giving
Plaintiff 30 days to file another Amended Complaint joining an additional defendant on his sixth
claim for relief. Thus, because Plaintiff has continued to amend his pleading, discovery in this
matter is ongoing. As explained in the court's Janumy 20, 2016 Opinion and Order, the
applicable discovery deadline in this case is currently set for June 9, 2016.
Nor have Defendants improperly failed to respond to Plaintiff's discovery requests. As
explained in a prior Opinion and Order(# 109), Plaintiffs discove1y requests were procedurally
and substantively deficient. Thus, Defendants' failure to respond to those requests does not
entitle Plaintiff to summary judgment.
Finally, summary judgment is not warranted on the basis of Plaintiff's purported
satisfaction of the PLRA's exhaustion requirement or the purp01ted inapplicability of Defendants'
second and third affinnative defenses. It is Plaintiff's burden to establish that there are no
genuine issues of material fact on the elements of his claims. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Plaintiff
has not offered any evidence in support of his Motion for Summary Judgment. Therefore,
Plaintiff has failed to carry his burden under Rule 56. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Thus, even
accepting as true Plaintiff's contentions regarding exhaustion and the inapplicability of
1 On May 14, 2015, Plaintiff also moved the court for an order extending the discovery deadline.
See Mot. for Extension of Time (#64).
OPINION AND ORDER-PAGE 3

Defendants' second and third affomative defenses, Plaintiff is not entitled to sununary judgment.
Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment is therefore denied.

II.

Plaintiffs Motions for Partial Summary Judgment
Plaintiffs First Motion for Partial Sununary Judgment (#40) and Plaintiffs Second

Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (#41) are also denied. Through his First and Second
Motions for Partial Sununary Judgment, respectively, Plaintiff moves for sununary judgment on
his sixth and first claim for relief. As in initial matter, I note that this court has already dismissed
Plaintiffs first claim for relief. See Opinion and Order (#101). Therefore, Plaintiffs Second
Motion for Partial Sununary Judgment is moot. Moreover, Plaintiff has failed to offer any
evidence in support of either Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Thus, Plaintiff has failed to
carry his burden under Rule 56. Consequently, Plaintiffs First Motion for Pattial Sununary
Judgment and Plaintiff's Second Motion for Pattial Sununary Judgment are denied.
CONCLUSION

For the reasons provided above, Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (#39) is
denied. Additionally, Plaintiffs First Motion for Pattial Summary Judgment (#40) and Plaintiff's
Second Motion for Partial Sununary Judgment (#41) are also denied.

Dated this 22nd Day of January, 2016.

()
/s/-\--<AM..L...J~.J.-~~!l,L__
Hon rable Paul Papak
United States Magistrate Judge

OPINION AND ORDER-PAGE 4