Taylor v. Peters, 360 Or. 460

Petitioner (Taylor) was convicted and sentenced in Oregon but transferred to and confined in Colorado under the Western Interstate Corrections Compact (WICC).
Taylor filed a state habeas petition in Oregon alleging ongoing Eighth and Fifth Amendment and Oregon Constitution violations based on dangerous living conditions in the Colorado facility (other prisoners throwing feces and urine into his cell).
Taylor named the Director of the Oregon Department of Corrections (ODOC) as the defendant and sought habeas relief under ORS 34.310 and ORS 34.362.
The state moved to dismiss, arguing the Director was not a proper defendant (no physical custody or control over Colorado conditions) and that Taylor failed to allege a constitutional deprivation requiring immediate relief. The trial court dismissed with prejudice.
The Oregon Court of Appeals reversed, concluding Taylor had alleged a constitutional deprivation and that transfer under the WICC did not bar a state habeas action in Oregon, relying on precedent involving the ICC.
The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, held that WICC transfers do not bar habeas in Oregon, that Taylor alleged cognizable constitutional claims, and that the ODOC Director is a proper defendant; the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an inmate transferred under the WICC can seek habeas in Oregon	Taylor: Oregon courts have jurisdiction; transfer does not deprive access to state habeas	State: Physical custody in Colorado bars an Oregon habeas action	Held: Transfer under WICC does not bar filing habeas in Oregon
Whether alleged conditions in Colorado state a cognizable habeas claim	Taylor: Conditions (feces/urine) constitute Eighth/Fifth and Oregon constitutional violations requiring immediate attention	State: Allegations insufficient to show a constitutional deprivation requiring habeas relief	Held: Allegations were sufficient to state cognizable constitutional claims (Court of Appeals’ conclusion not reviewed by state)
Whether ODOC Director is a proper defendant in habeas action	Taylor: Director is proper because ODOC arranged transfer and has supervisory responsibility	State: Director lacks physical custody and control over Colorado conditions, so is not proper defendant	Held: Director is a proper defendant for habeas petitions challenging transfer and ongoing confinement conditions
Whether WICC differs from ICC for purposes of habeas jurisdiction	Taylor: WICC and ICC are functionally identical for these issues	State: Distinction could preclude applying ICC precedent	Held: WICC and ICC are effectively identical here; precedent applies

Barrett v. Peters, 360 Or 445 (2016) (Oregon Supreme Court holding transfers under the interstate compact do not bar state habeas claims)
Taylor v. Peters, 274 Or App 477 (2015) (Oregon Court of Appeals reversing trial court and recognizing habeas claims by transferred inmate)