UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

MARLIN BRANDT POHLMAN, 3: 14-cv-01483-PK 

Plaintiff, 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 

Case 3:14-cv-01483-PK Document 65 Filed 05/22/15 Page 1 of 3
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 

pending disposition of a dispositive motion. Little v. City of 

Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). The Court has reviewed 

plaintiff's discovery requests and has determined that such 

requests are unrelated to the question of whether 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 [38) , [56) , [5 7) , [63) & [64); and Motions to Add 

2 - ORDER 

Case 3:14-cv-01483-PK Document 65 Filed 05/22/15 Page 2 of 3
Supplemental 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 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] . Finally, 

plaintiff is reminded that his response to defendants' Partial 

Motion for Summary Judgment is due by June 15, 2015. 

IT IS 

DATED 

3 - ORDER 

SO ORDERED! 

this .;;4;2,w day 

Case 3:14-cv-01483-PK Document 65 Filed 05/22/15 Page 3 of 3