Bedell v. Schiedler

• Decision Date: 21 March 1989
• Docket Number: C-10928
• Citation: 770 P.2d 909,307 Or. 562
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court
• Parties: Helen Jolaine BEDELL, Petitioner on Review, v. R. SCHIEDLER, Superintendent, Oregon Women's Correctional Center, Respondent on Review. TC 89-; CA A46980; SC S35677.

Page 909

770 P.2d 909

307 Or. 562

Helen Jolaine BEDELL, Petitioner on Review, v. R. SCHIEDLER, Superintendent, Oregon Women's Correctional Center, Respondent on Review.

TC 89-C-10928; CA A46980; SC S35677.

Supreme Court of Oregon In Banc.

Argued and Submitted Feb. 1, 1989.

Decided March 21, 1989.

John E. Storkel, Salem, argued the cause and filed the petition for petitioner on review.

Thomas H. Denney, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for respondent on review.

VAN HOOMISSEN, Justice.

Plaintiff appeals the dismissal of her claim for habeas corpus relief. ¹ She contends that the circuit court erred in dismissing her claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. ORCP 21 A(1). ² We review for errors of law, ORS 34.710, and reverse.

Plaintiff, an inmate of the Oregon Women's Corrections Center (OWCC), petitioned the circuit court for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that defendant's failure to provide adequate ventilation and circulation of clean air at OWCC violated her constitutional rights against cruel and unusual punishment. A writ issued, and defendant filed a return alleging only that plaintiff was in custody pursuant to a valid judgment and sentencing order. Plaintiff filed a replication. ³ Thereafter, defendant moved to dismiss the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to ORCP 21 A(1). ⁴ The circuit court allowed the motion, ⁵ finding that plaintiff was challenging conditions of her confinement that did not require immediate judicial intervention and that she had reasonably available alternative legal remedies including preliminary injunctions and tort claims.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, but for a different reason:

"[Plaintiff] does not allege that she did not suffer the ailments before her confinement at OWCC, that her physical ailments are linked medically to the lack of ventilation and circulation of air or that she has sought medical treatment that has failed to alleviate her ailments. She therefore has failed to state ultimate facts sufficient to constitute a basis for habeas corpus relief."

Bedell v. Schiedler, 93 Or.App. 214, 215, 761 P.2d 552 (1988).

We first examine the statutory framework for habeas corpus actions. Habeas corpus proceedings are governed by ORS 34.310 et seq. Except where a different procedure is specified by those statutes procedures to be followed in habeas corpus actions are those prescribed by the Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure. Gage v. Maass, 306 Or. 196, 201, 759 P.2d 1049 (1988).

The central characteristic of the writ of habeas corpus is the speed with which it triggers judicial scrutiny. Penrod/Brown v. Cupp, 283 Or. 21, 27, 581 P.2d 934 (1978). On the filing of a well pleaded petition, a writ shall issue "without delay." ORS 34.370. After a return to the writ is filed, the court "shall, immediately * * *, proceed to examine into the facts contained in the return." ORS 34.580. If a replication is filed, the court shall proceed "in a summary way" to hear the evidence and decide the case. ORS 34.670.

ORS 34.680 provides:

"The plaintiff may move to strike the return, or the defendant may move to strike any new matter set forth in the replication of the plaintiff, or by proof controvert the same, as upon a direct denial or avoidance. The pleadings shall be made within such time as the court or judge shall direct, and they shall be construed and have the same effect as in an action."

We conclude that any motion practice other than an ORS 34.680 motion to strike is inappropriate in habeas corpus actions. Any additional motion practice would only lengthen and complicate actions intended to provide an expeditious and summary resolution of the issues presented.

The function of a petition for writ of habeas corpus is to secure the issuance of a writ. ORS 34.340. ORS 34.360 prescribes the form and contents of petitions for the writ of habeas corpus. A petition must state more than mere conclusions; it must allege with particularity facts which, if true, would entitle the plaintiff to habeas corpus relief. ORS 34.360. A plaintiff claiming a violation of constitutional rights must allege facts showing that such violations affect him or her individually.

Once a petition has been filed, the circuit court must allow the writ without delay, unless it appears from the petition itself, or from the documents annexed thereto, that the provisions of ORS 34.310 to 34.730 prohibit the person for whose relief the writ is intended from prosecuting the writ. The clerk shall issue the writ immediately. ORS 34.370. Generally, strict rules of pleading are not enforced in habeas corpus actions; petitions should be construed liberally and not voided for mere technical defects. State ex rel. Sorensen v. Baird, 201 Or. 240, 247, 269 P.2d 535 (1954); see ORS 34.680. If the writ issues, the petition ordinarily ceases to have any function and is not considered part of the pleadings, unless it is incorporated into or treated as plaintiff's replication. Gage v. Maass, supra, 306 Or. at 202, 759 P.2d 1049, citing State ex rel. Sorensen v. Baird, supra, 201 Or. at 247-48, 269 P.2d 535.

The return to the writ is the defendant's principal pleading. ORS 34.540; State ex rel. Sorensen v. Baird, supra, 201 Or. at 247, 269 P.2d 535. Once a return has been filed, the factual allegations contained therein are deemed true unless, by replication, the plaintiff denies their truth. A plaintiff may move to strike the return. ORS 34.680. Where the return is unchallenged, the only issue is whether the facts in the return alone are sufficient to justify habeas corpus relief. ⁶

The replication to the return is the plaintiff's principal pleading. The plaintiff is not required to file a replication. ORS 34.670. In the replication, the plaintiff may controvert any of the material facts in the return, or allege therein any fact showing grounds for habeas corpus relief. ORS 34.670. The replication must allege with particularity facts which, if true, would entitle the plaintiff to habeas corpus relief. See Smallman v. Gladden, 206 Or. 262, 270, 291 P.2d 749 (1956). A replication may controvert any material fact in a return, or it may allege any fact showing grounds for habeas corpus relief. ORS 34.670. If the defendant agrees, the petition may be treated as the replication. A defendant may move to strike any new matter in the replication, or may controvert it by proof. ORS 34.680.

After the circuit court has received the return and the replication, if any, the case is set for summary hearing if there are any disputed fact questions. ORS 34.670. A hearing is not required if there are no disputed fact questions, or if the facts averred by the plaintiff, even if true, would be insufficient to warrant habeas corpus relief. See Keehan v. Peterson, 307 Or. 323, 767 P.2d 441 (1989).

In addition to its use to determine whether a person is being held unlawfully, habeas corpus may also be available:

"(1) When a petition makes allegations which, if true, show that the prisoner, though validly in custody, is subjected to a further 'imprisonment or restraint' of his person that would be unlawful if not justified to the court, and (2) when a petition alleges other deprivations of a prisoner's legal rights of a kind which, if true, would require immediate judicial scrutiny, if it also appears to the court that no other timely remedy is available to the prisoner." Penrod/Brown v. Cupp, supra, 283 Or. at 28, 581 P.2d 934.

In Penrod/Brown this court clarified the requirements for habeas corpus claims involving alleged deprivations of a prisoners' legal rights:

"[W]e emphasize the two essential elements that must coincide to make the writ of habeas corpus a proper instrument of judicial inquiry: The need for immediate attention, if this appears from the urgency of the harm to which the prisoner claims to be exposed or if it is found to be required as a matter of constitutional law, and the practical inadequacy of an alternative remedy to meet this need." 283 Or. at 28, 581 P.2d 934.

In Gage v. Maass, supra, 306 Or. at 204, 759 P.2d 1049, we underscored the fact that both elements must be present to sustain the deprivation of legal rights type of a habeas corpus claim.

Turning to the merits of this case, plaintiff concedes that she is validly confined. In her replication she alleges that the conditions of her custody are unconstitutional. Defendant did not move to strike any new matter in the replication. ORS 34.680. The circuit court was required to accept all her allegations as true. As such, they were sufficient as a matter of law to require a hearing on the merits. The conditions of plaintiff's custody and its impact on her health were factual issues which the circuit court should have examined.

The circuit court found that plaintiff's allegations did not require immediate judicial intervention and that she had reasonably available alternative legal remedies. We disagree on both grounds.

Plaintiff's replication contains uncontroverted allegations that she is unnecessarily suffering clogged sinuses, severe headaches, dry and irritated skin and a sore throat and that those health problems will continue unless conditions at OWCC are changed. Accepting those allegations as true, they present unresolved issues of fact requiring immediate judicial scrutiny.

Nor are we persuaded that plaintiff has reasonably available alternate legal remedies. In the context of plaintiff's allegations that she is unnecessarily suffering serious and ongoing injury, an ordinary civil action seeking injunctive relief is neither a timely nor an adequate remedy. See Mueller v. Cupp, 45 Or.App. 495, 499-500, 608 P.2d 1203 (1980). We cannot find that plaintiff is required to endure additional weeks, months, or perhaps years, of the unconstitutional conditions pleaded in her replication while pursuing tort claims against this defendant, the state, or other potential defendants. On these...