ORS 34.310
Purpose of writ

  • who may prosecute

The writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum is the writ designated in ORS 34.310 (Purpose of writ) to 34.730 (Forfeiture for refusing copy of order or process), and every other writ of habeas corpus is abolished. Every person imprisoned or otherwise restrained of liberty, within this state, except in the cases specified in ORS 34.330 (Who may not prosecute writ), may prosecute a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the cause of such imprisonment or restraint, and if illegal, to be delivered therefrom.

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)

34.010
Former writ of certiorari as writ of review
34.020
Who may obtain review
34.030
Jurisdiction to grant writ
34.040
When allowed
34.050
Plaintiff’s undertaking
34.060
To whom directed
34.070
Stay of proceedings
34.080
Issuance and service of writ
34.090
Order for further return
34.100
Power of court on review
34.102
Review of decisions of municipal corporations
34.105
Definitions for ORS 34.105 to 34.240
34.110
When and to whom writ issued
34.120
Courts having jurisdiction
34.130
Petition for writ
34.140
Direction and service of writ
34.150
Peremptory and alternative writs
34.160
Allowance of peremptory writ in first instance
34.170
Answer or motion to dismiss by defendant
34.180
Failure to answer or move for dismissal
34.190
Other pleadings
34.200
Allowance and trial in Supreme Court
34.210
Recovery of damages
34.220
Recovery as a bar
34.230
Imposition of fine
34.240
Appeal
34.250
Certain mandamus proceedings under Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction
34.310
Purpose of writ
34.320
Courts having jurisdiction
34.330
Who may not prosecute writ
34.340
Petition
34.350
Application by district attorney
34.355
Appointment of counsel
34.360
Contents of petition when person challenges authority for confinement
34.362
Contents of petition when person challenges conditions of confinement or deprivation of rights while confined
34.365
Filing petition of prisoner without payment of filing fees
34.370
Order to show cause
34.380
Warrant in lieu of writ
34.390
Order for arrest of person having custody
34.400
Execution of warrant
34.410
Criminal offense by person having custody
34.421
Contents of writ
34.430
Defect of form
34.440
Who may serve writ
34.450
Payment of charges when service is on person other than sheriff or other officer
34.460
Manner of service
34.470
Service when officer or other person hides or refuses admittance
34.480
Proof of service
34.490
Duty to obey writ
34.500
When return must be made
34.520
Sickness of person
34.530
Requiring return and production of party by order
34.540
Contents of return
34.550
Warrant in case of refusal or neglect to obey writ
34.560
Failure of sheriff to return writ
34.570
Precept commanding bringing of prisoner
34.580
Inquiry into cause of imprisonment
34.590
Discharge when no legal cause for restraint is shown
34.600
When party to be remanded
34.610
Grounds for discharge of prisoner in custody under order or civil process
34.620
Inquiry into legality of certain judgments and process not permitted
34.630
Proceedings where commitment for criminal offense is legal, or party probably is guilty
34.640
Custody of party pending proceedings
34.650
Notice to third persons
34.660
Notice to district attorney
34.670
Replication following return
34.680
Motion to deny petition
34.690
Requiring production of person after writ issued
34.695
Conduct of hearing
34.700
Judgment
34.710
Appeal
34.712
Summary affirmation of judgment on appeal
34.720
Imprisonment after discharge
34.730
Forfeiture for refusing copy of order or process
34.740
Amendment of petition or action against public body when wrong remedy sought
34.810
Scire facias and quo warranto
Green check means up to date. Up to date