Purpose of writ
- who may prosecute
Source:
Section 34.310 — Purpose of writ; who may prosecute, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors034.html.
Notes of Decisions
Despite abolition of “civil death,” writ of habeas corpusremains available where no other timely process is available to convicted prisoners for challenging unlawful imprisonment, unlawful restraint or other deprivation of rights requiring immediate judicial scrutiny. Penrod/Brown v. Cupp, 283 Or 21, 581 P2d 934 (1978)
Where diabetic inmate alleged deprivation of necessary diet and medical care, claim, which demonstrated need for immediate judicial intervention and to which there was no adequate and timely alternative available, could properly be brought by writ of habeas corpus. Mueller v. Cupp, 45 Or App 495, 608 P2d 1203 (1980)
Writ of habeas corpus was not available to juvenile petitioner to challenge her placement in Rosemont School on grounds that it violated [former] ORS 419.509 because petitioner had adequate alternative remedy through petition to juvenile court. Shrewsbury v. Larson, 52 Or App 81, 627 P2d 910 (1981), Sup Ct review denied
Where plaintiff’s replication alleges sufficient specific facts that conditions of confinement unnecessarily subject plaintiff to serious health hazards, claim for habeas corpus is supported and plaintiff has right to hearing regarding constitutional rights. Bedell v. Schiedler, 307 Or 562, 770 P2d 909 (1989); Waters v. Bunnell, 138 Or App 377, 909 P2d 214 (1996)
Where plaintiff, penitentiary inmate, alleged he had made several suicide attempts, he had requested to see psychiatrist on 15 to 20 occasions, but defendant had failed to provide any treatment, immediate judicial scrutiny was required and court erred in dismissing writ of habeas corpus. Fox v. Zenon, 106 Or App 37, 806 P2d 166 (1991)
Where alcoholism and mental illness alleged by plaintiff confined to penitentiary did not create risk of serious and immediate harm, immediate judicial scrutiny was not required, and court did not err when it dismissed writ of habeas corpus. Jones v. Maass, 106 Or App 42, 806 P2d 168 (1991), Sup Ct review denied
Plaintiffs who alleged they were denied psychiatric diagnosis and treatment while patients at Oregon State Hospital under jurisdiction of Psychiatric Security Review Board were not entitled to habeas corpus relief on ground that they might be released sooner than their original term if they were to receive that diagnosis and treatment. Bahrenfus v. Bachik, 106 Or App 46, 806 P2d 170 (1991), Sup Ct review denied
Plaintiff’s claim requesting court to order Department of Corrections to provide plaintiff with annual evaluations as entitled by chapter 486, Oregon Laws 1987, was insufficient for habeas corpus relief where plaintiff failed to allege need for immediate judicial scrutiny. Tyrrell v. Maass, 106 Or App 565, 808 P2d 732 (1991), Sup Ct review denied
Where inmate alleged serious medical consequences due to confiscation of orthopedic footwear, habeas corpus relief was justified. Voth v. Maass, 120 Or App 574, 852 P2d 969 (1993)
Absent showing that sanction requires immediate judicial scrutiny, habeas corpus is not available to address imposition of fine or extension of parole release date. Pham v. Thompson, 156 Or App 440, 965 P2d 482 (1998), Sup Ct review denied
Where initial parole board order extended incarceration portion of indeterminate sentence past date prisoner was entitled by statute to parole, issuance of superseding order after date prisoner was entitled to parole did not make prisoner’s challenge to initial order moot. Hamel v. Johnson, 330 Or 180, 998 P2d 661 (2000)
Habeas corpus is permissible means by which defendant charged with murder may challenge trial court’s decision to deny release. Rico-Villalobos v. Guisto, 339 Or 197, 118 P3d 246 (2005)
Up to date