Rivas v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 13C14922

• Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
• Citation: 369 P.3d 1239,277 Or.App. 76
• Docket Number: 13C14922,A155575.
• Parties: Pepe Glenn RIVAS, Plaintiff, and Daniel Lee Maupin, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST–PRISON SUPERVISION, Defendant–Respondent.
• Decision Date: 16 March 2016

277 Or.App. 76
369 P.3d 1239

Pepe Glenn RIVAS, Plaintiff,
and
Daniel Lee Maupin, Plaintiff–Appellant,
v.
BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST–PRISON SUPERVISION, Defendant–Respondent.

13C14922
A155575.

Court of Appeals of Oregon.

Submitted Aug. 7, 2015.
Decided March 16, 2016.

369 P.3d 1240

Daniel Lee Maupin filed the briefs pro se.

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Anna M. Joyce, Solicitor General, and Judy C. Lucas, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before ORTEGA, Presiding Judge, and LAGESEN, Judge, and GARRETT, Judge.

LAGESEN, J.

277 Or.App. 77

Plaintiff Maupin¹ appeals a judgment dismissing his complaint under ORS 192.680(2)² alleging violations of Oregon's Public Meetings Law, ORS 192.610 to ORS 192.695, by defendant, the Oregon Board of Parole and Post–Prison Supervision (the board). In particular, plaintiff contends that the "file-pass" procedure used by the board to decide whether to order a second psychological evaluation of an offender in connection with a parole decision is a "meeting" that violates ORS 192.630(1) and other procedural provisions of the Public Meetings Law³ because the board does not conduct that process openly and in compliance with the statutory procedures applicable to "meetings." Alternatively, plaintiff alleges that the file-pass procedure constitutes impermissible private deliberations, in violation of ORS 192.630(2).⁴ The trial court dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the allegations fail to state a claim for violations of the Public Meetings Law and, alternatively, that the complaint is time barred. We conclude that plaintiff's allegations do not state a claim for violations of the Public Meetings Law and, accordingly, affirm.

277 Or.App. 78

We review the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under ORCP 21 A(8) for legal error, "assum[ing] the truth of all allegations in the complaint, as well as any inferences that may be drawn,

369 P.3d 1241

and view[ing] them in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." BoardMaster Corp. v. Jackson County, 224 Or.App. 533, 535, 198 P.3d 454 (2008) ; see Sternberg v. Lechman–Su, 271 Or.App. 401, 406, 350 P.3d 593, rev. den., 358 Or. 69, 363 P.3d 500 (2015).

According to the complaint, plaintiff is an offender for whom the board is charged with making parole-related decisions. In connection with the parole process, the board often orders a psychological evaluation of the offender, as authorized by ORS 144.223. Sometimes the board orders more than one psychological evaluation of an offender. To make the decision whether to order an additional psychological evaluation, the board—pursuant to a policy it adopted in 2007—employs what is known as the "file-pass" procedure. Under the file-pass procedure, a staff member identifies on a form the specific issue that the board needs to decide regarding a particular offender. That form, along with the offender's file, is passed from board member to board member. Board members comment on the form, and the form and file are then returned to a staff person who prepares a Board Action Form memorializing the decision reflected in the board members' comments. The process takes place in private, and is not open to the public.

Plaintiff alleges that the board has, in the past, employed the file-pass procedure to decide whether to order additional psychological evaluations for him. Among other things, he requests that...