2017 ORS 34.362¹
Contents of petition when person challenges conditions of confinement or deprivation of rights while confined

If the person is imprisoned or restrained by virtue of any order, judgment or process specified in ORS 34.330 (Who may not prosecute writ) and the person challenges the conditions of confinement or complains of a deprivation of rights while confined, the petition shall:

(1) Comply with requirements of ORS 34.360 (Contents of petition when person challenges authority for confinement) (1), (3), (4) and (5); and

(2) State facts in support of a claim that the person is deprived of a constitutional right that requires immediate judicial attention and for which no other timely remedy is practicably available to the plaintiff. [1991 c.884 §5; 2003 c.576 §313]

Notes of Decisions

Place­ment in prison Intensive Manage­ment Unit does not raise issues subject to writ of habeas corpus. Troxel v. Maass, 120 Or App 397, 853 P2d 294 (1993)

Allega­tion that peti­tioner was being subjected to ongoing and periodical assaults by guards met min­i­mum require­ments for habeas corpus jurisdic­tion. Schafer v. Maass, 122 Or App 518, 858 P2d 474 (1993)

Civil rights lawsuit for tort damages and injunctive relief is not adequate alternative remedy for peti­tioner alleging unconstitu­tional im­pris­on­­ment or restraint of per­son. Barrett v. Belleque, 344 Or 91, 176 P3d 1272 (2008)

Director of Depart­ment of Correc­tions is proper defendant in peti­tion for writ of habeas corpus by transferred inmate in physical custody of receiving state pursuant to Interstate Correc­tions Compact under ORS 421.284 (Western Interstate Corrections Compact) because sending state retains sole authority to remove inmate from condi­tions of which inmate complains and inmate remains in constructive custody of sending state. Taylor v. Peters, 360 Or 460, 383 P3d 279 (2016)

Notes of Decisions

Availability of relief under writ of habeas corpus is not defeated by transfer of custody from one correc­tional facility to an­oth­er while matter is pending. Clemman v. Wright, 109 Or App 325, 819 P2d 327 (1991); McGee v. Johnson, 161 Or App 384, 984 P2d 341 (1999)

Law Review Cita­tions

14 WLJ 55 (1977)

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 34—Writs, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors034.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 34, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano034.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent.