McClaflin v. Wright

I agree that the issue is whether the replication contains allegations that are cognizable in habeas corpus under the second category of cases identified in Penrod/Brown v. Cupp, 283 Or 21, 581 P2d 934 (1978). However, I disagree with the majority’s analysis and conclusion. There is no meaningful distinction between the allegations in this case and those in Fox v. Zenon, 106 Or App 37, 806 P2d 166 (1991). Consequently, I dissent.

Plaintiff1 alleges that he “has a history of mental disease which is known to the staff of the Eastern Oregon Correctional Institution.” He alleges that he “has…