IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

MARLIN BRANDT POHLMAN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DR. CHRISTOPHER DIGULIO, DR. 

DANIELLE FUZI, OFFICER JOHN SMITH, 

NURSE CARTER, NURSE K. 

RICHARDSON, NURSE LANDA VERDE, 

NURSE CLEMENTS, JOE CAPPS, MARK 

NOOTH, and STATE OF OREGON 

Defendants. 

PAPAK, Magistrate Judge: 

3:14-cv-1483-PK 

OPINION AND ORDER 

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 

Case 3:14-cv-01483-PK Document 132 Filed 03/24/16 Page 1 of 4
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 

Case 3:14-cv-01483-PK Document 132 Filed 03/24/16 Page 2 of 4
"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 

Case 3:14-cv-01483-PK Document 132 Filed 03/24/16 Page 3 of 4
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 

Case 3:14-cv-01483-PK Document 132 Filed 03/24/16 Page 4 of 4