Barrett v. Belleque, 344 Or. 91

Summary

The Supreme Court of Oregon considered whether a prisoner's challenge to placement in an intensive management unit could proceed through habeas corpus despite the availability of a federal civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court held that the transfer of the prisoner to Oklahoma did not moot the dispute and that the alternative § 1983 remedy did not foreclose habeas relief for an alleged unlawful restraint. However, the court affirmed the dismissal on the ground that the petition failed to establish a due-process violation, assuming without deciding that the IMU placement implicated a protected liberty interest.

Holdings

1. The case was not moot because the Interstate Corrections Compact preserved Barrett's Oregon legal rights and the record indicated that Oklahoma officials would seek Oregon's agreement concerning his security classification and housing.
2. The existence of a possible federal civil-rights remedy under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not foreclose state habeas relief when the petition alleges an unconstitutional further imprisonment or restraint of the petitioner's person.
3. Barrett's petition failed to state a procedural due process claim because, even assuming that IMU placement implicated a protected liberty interest, the notice, administrative review, opportunity to submit evidence, and related procedures provided by Oregon were constitutionally sufficient.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Barrett's transfer to an Oklahoma prison under the Interstate Corrections Compact rendered his habeas challenge moot.
2. Whether the availability of a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 foreclosed state habeas relief challenging an allegedly unconstitutional further imprisonment or restraint.
3. Whether Barrett stated a procedural due process claim by alleging that he was placed in Oregon's intensive management unit without a formal preplacement hearing.

Disposition

affirmed