Taylor v. Board of Parole
Decision Date | 06 July 2005 |
Docket Number | A126135. |
Citation | 200 Or. App. 515,115 P.3d 256 |
Parties | Terry Eugene TAYLOR, Petitioner, v. BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION, Respondent. |
Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Hardy Myers, Attorney General, Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General, and Brendan C. Dunn, Assistant Attorney General, for motion.
Terry E. Taylor, pro se, contra.
Before LINDER, Presiding Judge, and BREWER, Chief Judge, and WOLLHEIM, Judge.
Petitioner, a prison inmate, sought judicial review of an order issued by the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision that denied his re-release on parole and set his release date for May 2010. After petitioner filed his petition for judicial review, the board moved to dismiss it. In its motion, the board asserted that petitioner's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies deprives this court of jurisdiction. For the reasons discussed below, we agree with the board and dismiss the petition for judicial review.
Based on his convictions for a number of offenses, petitioner was sentenced to several years in prison. In February 2004, after holding a future disposition hearing, the board issued Board Action Form (BAF) # 30. In that order, the board found that petitioner cannot be adequately controlled in the community and, based on that finding and a number of aggravating factors, the board denied re-release and set petitioner's release date. In March 2004, the board timely received petitioner's request for administrative review of BAF # 30. In July 2004, having received no response from the board, petitioner wrote the board a letter in which he inquired about a response to his request for administrative review. Petitioner asked the board, "Will you please provide me with an answer to this letter and to my Administrative Review [request] so that I may continue this matter to the Appellate courts, if necessary[?]" (Emphasis in original.)
Still having heard nothing from the board, petitioner filed a petition for judicial review with this court in September 2004—some six months after he had sought administrative review by the board. In his petition, petitioner cited ORS 183.490 and ORS 183.482.1 He asserted that the "Board has failed to respond and the passage of time is unreasonable." He stated that he was seeking review of BAF # 30, a copy of which was attached to the petition. In response, the board moved to dismiss.
The board's argument is straightforward: The board concludes that, "when an offender files a petition for judicial review without waiting for the board to deny or grant relief as is appropriate, this court does not have jurisdiction to review the board's order."
Petitioner responds that this court should treat a request for administrative review as denied by the board after 60 days have passed with no board action:
(Citations omitted; boldface in original.) The procedural facts are not in dispute; accordingly, we address whether, as a matter of law, we have jurisdiction over petitioner's petition for judicial review.
Judicial review of board orders is governed by ORS 144.335(1), which provides, in part:
Two administrative rules also are relevant. One of them, OAR 255-080-0005, sets out the procedure for an inmate to obtain administrative review of a BAF; petitioner in this case complied with that procedure. The other, OAR 255-080-0001, entitled "Exhaustion of Remedies," provides:
We begin with settled principles. The right to obtain appellate review is statutory and is subject to limitations imposed by the statute conferring the right. Ososke v. DMV, 320 Or. 657, 659-60, 891 P.2d 633 (1995). Moreover, "[a]dministrative remedies are not exhausted unless applicable procedures, prescribed by statute or by rule, have been satisfied." Jackson v. Dept. of Rev., 298 Or. 633, 637, 695 P.2d 923 (1985). ORS 144.335(1), the relevant statute, gives this court jurisdiction to review a board order only if the petitioner has "exhausted administrative review as provided by board rule." Regarding that requirement, we explained in Ayres v. Board of Parole, 194 Or.App. 429, 435, 97 P.3d 1 (2004), that ORS 144.335(1) legislatively codifies the general principle that "a party seeking judicial review of agency action may not bypass available administrative remedies in favor of immediate access to the courts."
We consistently have dismissed judicial review in board cases in which the petitioner did not exhaust available administrative remedies. In Eli v. Board of Parole, 187 Or.App. 454, 67 P.3d 982 (2003), for example, the petitioner presented an argument on judicial review that he had not presented to the board in his request for administrative review. We granted the board's motion to dismiss. Referring to ORS 144.335(1), we said: Id. at 457, 67 P.3d 982 (quoting Jenkins v. Board of Parole, 313 Or. 234, 239, 833 P.2d 1268 (1992)) (bracketed material in Eli). And in Garcia v. Board of Parole, 109 Or.App. 321, 322, 818 P.2d 1296 (1991), we were faced with a situation identical to the one here: We concluded that, because the petitioner "did not exhaust his administrative remedies under ORS 144.335(1), we do not have jurisdiction to consider the petition." Id. Thus, our precedents and the plain wording of ORS 144.335(1) suggest that we should dismiss the petition for judicial review here.
As noted above, however, petitioner asserts that we should treat a request for administrative review as denied—and, therefore, the exhaustion requirement as met—if the board does not dispose of the request within a "reasonable" time. The problem with that approach is that ORS 144.335(1) imposes no such time limit. "The legislature knows how to include qualifying language in a statute when it wants to do so." PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or. 606, 614, 859 P.2d 1143 (1993). Here, it did not. That choice stands in contrast to the express and specific time limits for administrative and judicial review that the legislature has imposed in other, but analogous, statutes. E.g., ORS 183.482(1) (); ORCP 64 F (treating motion for new trial as denied if not "heard and determined" within 55 days). In light of the legislature's choice not to require the board to respond within a given time frame, we cannot insert the 60-day "deemed denied" provision that petitioner seeks. See ORS 174.010 ( ).
Nor, for three reasons, does ORS 183.490 provide this court with jurisdiction. First, that statute provides: "The court may, upon petition as described in ORS 183.484, compel an agency to act where it has unlawfully refused to act or make a decision or unreasonably delayed taking action or making a decision." That statute applies, by its terms, only to a petition "described in ORS 183.484," which, in turn, governs judicial review of orders in other than contested cases. Judicial review in this case, as explained above, is governed by ORS 144.335(1). Second, ORS 183.484(1) confers jurisdiction to consider a petition for judicial review of an order in other than a contested case only on the Marion County Circuit Court and the circuit court for the county in which the petitioner resides or has a principal business office. Third, ORS 183.315(5)(a) exempts orders issued to persons confined in a Department of Corrections facility from, among other things, the provisions of ORS 183.484 and ORS 183.490. In sum, because (1) petitioner has not filed a petition for review of an order in other than a contested case, (2) such orders are reviewable only by circuit courts, and (3) in all events, ORS 183.490 does not apply to orders such as the one at issue here, that statute does not provide this court with...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Murphy v. Bd. of Parole, A141520.
- Miller v. City of Portland
-
Ken Lewis & Util. Reform Project v. Beyer
... ... In Taylor v. Board of Parole, 200 Or.App. 514, 519, 115 P.3d 256, rev. den., 339 Or. 475, 124 P.3d 1248 ... ...
-
Larsen v. Board of Parole
... ... 219 P.3d 32 ... The flaw in petitioner's argument is this: In Taylor v. Board of Parole, 200 Or.App. 514, 521, 115 P.3d 256, rev. den., 339 Or. 475, 124 P.3d 1248 (2005), we held that the board may not, by "protracted inaction," preclude judicial review of its orders. We stated that, ... "consistently with the exhaustion policy of ORS 144.335(1), this court has ... ...