Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Barrett v. Belleque

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided November 15, 2006No. 05C-11516; A127929Published

1ConcurrenceEdmonds, P. J.

The majority concludes that, "[b]ecause plaintiff has another adequate remedy, he was, as a matter of law, not entitled to habeas corpus relief on his due process claim.” 209 Or App at 301. The rule of law arising from the majority’s reasoning appears to be that a plaintiff, validly in custody, who alleges that he has been denied procedural due process of law before being subjected to further restraint of his person, is not entitled to seek habeas corpus relief under ORS 34.310 to 34.730 because 42 USC section 1983 provides an adequate remedy. In my view, that holding is inconsistent with the…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Wolff v. McDonnellSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  2. Sandin v. ConnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
  3. Hewitt v. HelmsSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  4. Penrod v. CuppOregon Supreme Court · 1978
  5. Bedell v. SchiedlerOregon Supreme Court · 1989

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API