Pohlman v. Hormann et al

Filing 132

OPINION & ORDER: Plaintiff's Motions for Injunctive Relief 89 , 98 & 100 are Denied. Signed on 3/24/16 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 initiated this pro se action informa pauperis, alleging
Defendants violated his civil rights while he was in the custody of the Oregon Depmiment of
Corrections. Now before the comi are Pohlman's Motions for Injunctive Relief (#89, #98, #100).
Pohlman moves for a preliminary injunction directing Defendants to: (1) provide medical
accommodations to Pohlman; (2) provide Pohlman increased access to prison legal resources; (3)
house Pohlman in Deer Ridge Correctional Institution's (DRCI) addiction pre-treatment
dormitory; and (4) return all money confiscated from Pohlman's inmate trust account and cease
making charges to the account. For the reasons provided below, Pohlman's Motions for
Injunctive Relief are denied.

LEGAL STANDARD
A preliminary injunction is "an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a
clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief." Winter v. Nat. Res. Def Council, Inc.,

OPINION AND ORDER-PAGE 1

555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008) (citing 1vfazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997)). "A plaintiff
seeking a preliminary iajunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he
is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of
equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest." Id. at 7, 20. The
plaintiff "must establish that irreparable hmm is likely, not just possible .... " All. for the Wild
Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Winter, 555 U.S. at 21-22).

However, the court may apply a sliding scale test, under which "the elements of the preliminary
injunction test are balanced, so that a stronger showing of one element may offset a weaker
showing of another." Id. Thus, a plaintiff may obtain a preliminary injunction by showing
greater irreparable harm as the probability of success on the merits decreases. Id., cited in, KEE
Action Sports, LLC v. Shyang Huei Indus. Co., No. 3:14-CV-00071-HZ, 2014 WL 5780812, at

*3 (D. Or. Nov. 5, 2014). Similarly, "serious questions going to the merits and a balance of
hardships that tips sharply towards the plaintiff can support issuance of a preliminary injunction,
so long as the plaintiff also shows that there is a likelihood of irreparable injury and that the
injunction is in the public interest." Id. at 1135 (internal quotation marks omitted).
DISCUSSION
Pohlman is not entitled to a preliminary injunction directing Defendants to provide
medical accommodations or increased access to prison legal resources. Pohlman seeks the
following medical accommodations: a sedentary work restriction, a bottom tier bunk assignment,
and a pe1manent transfer to DRCI. He also seeks increased access to the following prison legal
resources: the prison law library, photocopying services, postage, and a flash drive. Imp01iantly,
Pohlman previously filed a motion for injunctive relief requesting identical medical
accommodations and increased access to prison legal resources, including the law library and

OPINION AND ORDER-PAGE 2

"correspondence." See Mot. for TRO 1-2 (#3-1 ). Judge Anna Brown denied the motion, finding
that Pohlman failed to demonsfrate a likelihood of success on the merits. See Order 3 (#14). I
agree with Judge Brown's reasoning and adopt it as my own.
Moreover, since Judge Brown's denial of Pohlman's prior motion for injunctive relief,
Pohlman has successfully filed countless motions and other documents with the court (many of
which were procedurally and substantively improper). In fact, Pohlman's filings grew so
numerous that I was forced to enter an Order (#101) prohibiting him from filing additional
motions without first obtaining the court's pe1mission. Thus, Pohlman's own conduct in
litigating this case belies his contention that the cunent limitations on his access to prison legal
resources hinder his ability to pursue this case such that he is likely to suffer irreparable injury.
Nor is Pohlman entitled to a preliminary injunction directing Defendants to house him in
DRCI's addiction pre-treatment dormitory or take any action with respect to his inmate trust
account. Those requests are not related to any of Pohlman's claims for relief. Consequently,
Pohlman has failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits or serious questions
going to the merits. See Voth v. Premo, No. 6:14-CV-00128-KI, 2014 WL 357122, at *4 (D. Or.
Jan. 31, 2014) ("Plaintiffs motions [for injunctive relief] are denied because ... the requested
injunctive relief is not related to any of the claims for relief which survive screening and,
therefore, plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success, or that there are serious
questions going to the merits .... ").

II
II
II
II

OPINION AND ORDER-PAGE 3

CONCLUSION

For the reasons provided above, Pohlman's Motions for Injunctive Relief (#89, #98,

# 100) are denied. .

tt·

.Q<l'i

l

Dated this 22mlDay of March, 2016.

OPINION AND ORDER-PAGE 4