Barrett v. Peters
274 Or. App. 237
| Or. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Plaintiff, an Oregon inmate, is incarcerated in Florida under the Interstate Corrections Compact (ICC).
- Oregon retains legal custody; Florida houses him as agent of Oregon under ICC terms.
- Plaintiff filed a habeas petition in Oregon under ORS 34.310 seeking relief for allegedly unconstitutional confinement conditions.
- Petition alleges Florida grooming policies violate Oregon Constitution rights to free exercise of religion and protection from unnecessary rigor; also cites RLUIPA.
- Trial court dismissed with prejudice, concluding ODOC director lacked physical custody and control over Florida confinement.
- On appeal, court considered whether ICC preserves Oregon rights, and whether the director is a proper habeas defendant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does ICC preserve Oregon rights for out-of-state confinement? | Glefiosa rights survive transfer under ICC. | ICC only limits transfer burden; does not preserve sending-state standards. | No loss of Oregon rights; ICC preserves rights to confinement standards. |
| May plaintiff seek habeas relief in Oregon for out-of-state confinement? | Barrett ensures Oregon petitioning rights extend under ICC. | ISSUE disputed; transfer moots or limits Oregon jurisdiction absent ICC. | Plaintiff may seek habeas relief in Oregon; ICC supplement permits this. |
| Is the director a proper defendant despite lack of physical custody? | Director is plaintiff’s legal custodian under ICC; proper defendant. | Director lacks physical custody and day-to-day control over Florida confinement. | Yes; director proper due to legal custody and authority to effect removal to Oregon. |
| Must plaintiff show director controlled Florida confinement conditions? | Control is not required for habeas against sending-state official. | Need evidence of control over Florida conditions. | Not required; writ can compel compliance via ICC framework; director remains proper defendant. |
Key Cases Cited
- Barrett v. Belleque, 344 Or 91 (2008) (ICC supplements habeas jurisdiction; preserves rights despite out-of-state confinement)
- Davenport v. Premo, 256 Or App 486 (2013) (mooring mootness focus on Oregon officials' control over out-of-state conditions)
- Anderson v. Britton, 212 Or 1 (1957) (constructive custody can sustain habeas actions despite lack of physical custody)
- Penrod/Brown v. Cupp, 283 Or 21 (1978) (historic function of habeas corpus and custodial authority)
- Garcia v. Lemaster, 439 F.3d 1215 (10th Cir 2006) (section 1983 context shows lack of control by sending-state officials over receiving-state conditions)
- Hundley v. Hobbs, 456 S.W.3d 755 (Ark. 2015) (ICC inmate in another state; petition directed to sending-state official under ICC framework)