Davenport v. Premo
256 Or. App. 486
| Or. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Plaintiff, an Oregon State Penitentiary inmate, sought habeas relief alleging deliberate indifference to ADHD after discontinuation of Ritalin.
- Trial court dismissed the writ; on appeal, plaintiff had been transferred to a Connecticut facility for the foreseeable future.
- The court requested information to determine mootness, including whether plaintiff remained confined, whether Oregon retained control over his medical care, and the potential mootness issue.
- Interstate Corrections Compact governs cross-state inmate transfers and allows inspection by the sending state to ensure care standards are not incompatible.
- Under the Compact, the receiving state provides medical care to out-of-state inmates in the same manner as it does for its own inmates, at no extra cost to the sending state.
- The court held the appeal moot because Oregon had ceased controlling plaintiff’s medical treatment in Connecticut and there was no evidence that Oregon influence affected his care there.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does transfer to another state moot the habeas claim? | Keenan-like argument that transfer could still affect treatment. | Oregon loses control over care; mootness applies. | Yes, moot; no practical effect. |
| Whether Oregon’s authority under the Interstate Corrections Compact could affect treatment in Connecticut | Oregon could influence Connecticut care, so not moot. | Compact allows limited inspection but not control over Connecticut care. | No practical effect; no evidence of Oregon influence. |
| Is there collateral impact sufficient to avoid mootness | Possible future orders could change treatment. | No pending or likely Oregon directive affecting Connecticut care. | Not shown; moot. |
Key Cases Cited
- Keenan v. Hall, 202 Or App 571 (2005) (mootness where transferred inmate's new prison not influenced by original supervision)
- Barrett v. Belleque, 344 Or 91 (2008) (transferred inmate may show nonmootness if previous officials affect treatment)
- Brumnett v. PSRB, 315 Or 402 (1993) (mootness requires practical effect on rights)
- Barnes v. Thompson, 159 Or App 383 (1999) (collateral consequences can defeat mootness)