Pohlman v. Hormann et al
Filing
92
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)
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
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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?