Barrett v. Peters
360 Or. 445
| Or. | 2016Background
- Jacob Henry Barrett, convicted and serving an Oregon life sentence, was transferred to and confined in Florida under the Interstate Corrections Compact (ICC), ORS 421.245.
- Barrett filed two habeas petitions in Oregon challenging the conditions of his Florida confinement as violating Oregon and federal constitutional rights (First/Free Exercise, Article I §§2,3,13; Eighth; Fourteenth).
- The Oregon trial court dismissed both petitions for failure to state a claim, reasoning the ODOC Director was not a proper defendant because she lacked physical custody and control over out-of-state conditions.
- The Oregon Court of Appeals reversed, holding transferred inmates may pursue habeas in Oregon and that naming the ODOC Director was permissible.
- The Oregon Supreme Court granted review, consolidated the appeals, affirmed the Court of Appeals, reversed the trial court judgments, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an inmate transferred under the ICC may bring habeas in Oregon | Barrett: ICC preserves rights and permits participation in proceedings he could bring if confined in Oregon | State: ORS 34.310 requires the prisoner be confined "within this state"; out‑of‑state custody bars habeas | Held: Yes — ICC supplements habeas analysis; transferred inmates may pursue habeas in Oregon (followed Barrett v. Belleque) |
| Whether alleged unconstitutional conditions in receiving state are cognizable in Oregon habeas | Barrett: ICC §4(5)/(8) preserves legal/constitutional rights and right to participate in proceedings; alleges state and federal constitutional deprivations | State: ICC permits receiving state to set conditions; any challenge is statutory, not constitutional; Oregon Constitution doesn’t apply extraterritorially/no Oregon state action | Held: Barrett pleaded cognizable constitutional claims; ICC does not strip transferred inmates of constitutional protections; state action can exist via sending‑state officials |
| Whether the ODOC Director is a proper habeas defendant when inmate is held out of state | Barrett: Director is the officer by whom he is imprisoned in law (constructive custodian) and can remedy by removing or re‑transferring him | State: Director lacks physical custody and control over Florida conditions, so is improper defendant | Held: Director is a proper defendant — constructive/ legal custody under ORS 34.360 suffices (director retains authority to remove/transfer) |
| Whether the ICC converts constitutional claims into mere statutory rights or limits remedies | Barrett: ICC preserves legal rights; constitutional claims remain available and habeas is appropriate remedy when no other timely remedy exists | State: ICC’s text/precedent limits scope to receiving‑state rules and statutory entitlements, not sending‑state constitutional standards | Held: ICC does not convert constitutional claims into only statutory claims; transferred inmates retain constitutional challenges enforceable via habeas |
Key Cases Cited
- Barrett v. Belleque, 344 Or 91 (Oregon Supreme Court) (ICC supplements habeas jurisdictional analysis)
- Anderson v. Britton, 212 Or 1 (Oregon Supreme Court) (constructive custody can make pretransfer custodial official a proper habeas defendant)
- Penrod/Brown v. Cupp, 283 Or 21 (Oregon Supreme Court) (habeas available where constitutional deprivations require immediate judicial scrutiny and no other timely remedy exists)
- State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160 (Oregon Supreme Court) (statutory interpretation uses text, context, and legislative history)