Taylor v. Peters
274 Or. App. 477
| Or. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Oregon prisoner transferred to Colorado under the Western Interstate Corrections Compact (WICC) filed an ORS 34.310 habeas petition alleging other inmates continuously threw feces and urine into his cell.
- He claimed those conditions violated the Eighth and Fifth Amendments and Article I, §§ 10 and 13 of the Oregon Constitution.
- He named the Director of the Oregon Department of Corrections (ODOC) — his legal custodian — seeking an order removing him from those conditions.
- Trial court granted the director’s motion to deny, reasoning the director lacked physical custody/control and the petition failed to allege a constitutional deprivation requiring immediate judicial attention.
- On appeal the court reviewed legal error and reversed, concluding the petition sufficiently alleged an immediate, serious, ongoing health hazard and that an out‑of‑state inmate may pursue habeas in Oregon against ODOC.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioner alleged a constitutional deprivation requiring immediate judicial attention under ORS 34.362(2) | Conditions (continuous human waste thrown into cell) create a serious, immediate, ongoing health hazard and constituted constitutional violation | Petition failed to allege a constitutional deprivation warranting immediate judicial intervention | Allegations were sufficient to meet the "immediate judicial attention" requirement; petition survives motion to deny |
| Whether an Oregon inmate housed out of state under WICC may seek habeas relief in Oregon | Transfer does not forfeit rights; inmate retains rights as if confined in Oregon and may seek Oregon habeas against ODOC | Lack of physical custody/control in Oregon bars Oregon habeas relief | Following Peters, an inmate housed under WICC retains right to seek Oregon habeas and ODOC director is proper defendant |
| Whether naming ODOC director was proper defendant when inmate is physically in Colorado | Director is legal custodian under WICC; retains jurisdictional authority and duties | Director lacks physical control over conditions in Colorado so wrong defendant | ODOC director was properly named because legal custody remains with Oregon under the compact |
| Whether other timely remedies (e.g., § 1983) make habeas unavailable | Habeas available for constitutional deprivations requiring immediate attention; Tarver indicates "timely remedy" means Oregon law remedies | Habeas unnecessary because federal civil rights suit is available | Court declined to consider for first time on appeal; noted Tarver suggests availability of federal remedies does not defeat Oregon habeas under ORS 34.362(2) |
Key Cases Cited
- Billings v. Gates, 133 Or App 236 (allegations of serious, immediate, ongoing health hazards satisfy ORS 34.362(2))
- Bedell v. Schiedler, 307 Or 562 (environmental conditions subjecting inmate to serious health hazards suffice to resist dismissal)
- Barrett v. Peters, 274 Or App 237 (Oregon inmate housed out of state retains right to seek Oregon habeas; ODOC director is proper defendant)
- McCray v. Burrell, 516 F.2d 357 (4th Cir.) (placement in excrement-encrusted cell can constitute Eighth Amendment violation)
- Tarver v. Cupp, 300 Or 154 (availability of federal remedies does not negate "timely remedies available under Oregon law" for ORS 34.362(2))