IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

MARLIN BRANDT POHLMAN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

KEVIN HORMANN, COLLETT PETERS, 

R. LADEBY, C. COLEMAN, 

W. BAYSINGER, C. OLSON, C. DIGULIO, 

D. FUZI, J. SMITH, 

Defendants. 

PAP AK, Magistrate Judge: 

3: 14-cv-1483-PK 

OPINION AND ORDER TO 

SHOW CAUSE 

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 I 1 

Case 3:14-cv-01483-PK Document 92 Filed 09/30/15 Page 1 of 5
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 I 2 

Case 3:14-cv-01483-PK Document 92 Filed 09/30/15 Page 2 of 5
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 I 3 

Case 3:14-cv-01483-PK Document 92 Filed 09/30/15 Page 3 of 5
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 

I I 

ORDER Page I 4 

Case 3:14-cv-01483-PK Document 92 Filed 09/30/15 Page 4 of 5
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 I 5 

Case 3:14-cv-01483-PK Document 92 Filed 09/30/15 Page 5 of 5