Habeas Corpus Appeals

State habeas corpus is a civil proceeding in which a plaintiff is seeking equitable relief (i.e., requesting the court to order a prison or jail to do something or to stop doing something). State habeas is available to challenge the authority for a person’s confinement or to challenge the conditions of a person’s confinement. Conditions of confinement cases often involve access to adequate medical care, but can involve other physical conditions of confinement, access to the courts, or infringement on a person’s right to practice religion.

A habeas case can be resolved on a motion to dismiss or on the merits following an evidentiary hearing. In either case, the losing party may appeal. Because habeas is a civil proceeding, plaintiffs are not entitled to court-appointed counsel at the trial level. However, upon request and a showing of inability to pay, a trial court may appoint counsel to represent the plaintiff. If the plaintiff appeals and was appointed counsel below or requests counsel be appointed on appeal and demonstrates an inability to pay, the Court of Appeals will appoint Equal Justice Law to represent the plaintiff on appeal. As with any other appeal, a party may bring legal challenges to the rulings of the trial court judge; the parties may not offer new evidence on appeal; and, generally, the parties may not challenge the trial court’s factual findings. Each party makes their legal argument by writing and filing a legal document, called a “brief,” in the Court of Appeals. The parties also have the option of orally arguing the case to the Court of Appeals. The court then reviews the briefs and decides the case.

Equal Justice Law recently had a significant habeas win. In White v. Reyes, 335 Or App 124 (2024), the Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court’s finding that the Oregon Department of Corrections was in contempt of court due its ongoing deliberate indifference to the plaintiff’s serious medical needs. The court also affirmed the trial court’s order that the plaintiff be released from custody due to the unconstitutional conditions in which he had been held for years. The Court of Appeals, as a matter of first impression, held that a habeas court has statutory authority to order the release of a plaintiff as a habeas remedy for deliberate indifference to the plaintiff’s serious medical needs.