Pohlman v. Hormann et al

Filing 65

ORDER: Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery and for a Stay of Pending Deadlines [59) is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint [37); Motions to Compel [38), [56), [5 7), [63) & [64); and Motions to Add Su pplemental Parties and Motions for Joinder 52 & 53 are STAYED pending resolution of defendants' Partial Motion for Summary Judgment 60 . In addition, deadlines for defendants' to respond to plaintiff's various summary judgment mot ions 39 , 40 & 41 are STAYED pending resolution of defendants' Motion and plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time 64 to complete discovery is GRANTED to the extent the deadline is STAYED. Plaintiff's Second and Third Motions fo r Appointment of counsel 55 & 64 are DENIED for the reasons set forth in the Court's prior Order 10 . Finally, plaintiff is reminded that his response to defendants' Partial Motion for Summary Judgment is due by June 15, 2015. Signed on 5/22/15 by Magistrate Judge Paul Papak. (Mailed copy to plaintiff) (dsg)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF OREGON
MARLIN BRANDT POHLMAN,
Plaintiff,

3:

14-cv-01483-PK

ORDER

v.
HORMANN, et al.,
Defendants.
PAPAK, Magistrate Judge.
Defendants in this prisoner civil rights action move the Court
to stay discovery and to stay all pending deadlines until the Court
has resolved their motion for partial summary judgment wherein they
assert plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies prior to
filing suit as to all but two claims 1 , including the new claims set

1

Defendants concede plaintiff exhausted the following
claims:
(1) Defendant J. Smith, Security officer failed to obtain
medical attention for plaintiff on April 27,
2014, despite
plaintiff's repeated complaints about injuries he sustained after
a fall; and (2) Defendants C. DiGulio, Medical Officer and D. Fuzi,
Medical Supervisor denied plaintiff 1 s request for a low bunk
restriction and a work restriction.
1 - ORDER

forth in plaintiff's proposed amended complaint attached to his
Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint.

Defendants maintain

staying discovery is appropriate here because,

should the Court

grant their motion, it will considerably narrow the issues for the
Court's

consideration

and

streamline

the

discovery

process.

Plaintiff opposes defendants' motion.
A district

court

has

broad discretion

to

stay discovery

Little v.

pending disposition of a dispositive motion.

City of

Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988).

The Court has reviewed

plaintiff's

determined

requests

discovery

are

requests

unrelated

to

and

the

has

question

of

that

whether

such

plaintiff

properly exhausted his administrative remedies prior to filing
suit.

In addition,

the Court finds

defendants'

argument that

several of plaintiff's other pending motions may be resolved in all
or in part by the Court's ruling on defendants' motion for partial
summary judgment.

Finally, given the prospect that this case may

be narrowed down to examination of two discreet claims, the Court
concludes

that

staying

all

other

pending

deadlines

until

defendants' motion is resolved is the most efficient course.
CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery
and for a Stay of Pending Deadlines [59) is GRANTED.

Plaintiff's

Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint

[37); Motions to

Compel

Motions

[38) ,

2 - ORDER

[56) ,

[5 7) ,

[63)

&

[64);

and

to

Add

Supplemental Parties and Motions for Joinder [52] & [53] are STAYED
pending

resolution

Judgment [60].

of

defendants'

Partial

Motion

for

Summary

In addition, deadlines for defendants' to respond

to plaintiff's various summary judgment motions [39],

[40] & [41]

are STAYED pending resolution of defendants' Motion and plaintiff's
Motion for Extension of Time [64] to complete discovery is GRANTED
to the extent the deadline is STAYED.

Plaintiff's Second and Third

Motions for Appointment of counsel [55] & [64] are DENIED for the
reasons

set

forth

in the Court's prior Order

[10] .

plaintiff is reminded that his response to defendants'
Motion for Summary Judgment is due by June 15, 2015.
IT IS SO ORDERED!
DATED this

3 - ORDER

.;;4;2,w day

Finally,
Partial