Hejazi v. Sammons

508 P.3d 996, 318 Or. App. 668

• Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
• Decided: March 30, 2022
• Docket: A176865
• Status: Published

Opinion

Submitted February 4, reversed and remanded March 30, 2022

HAMID MICHAEL HEJAZI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Anna SAMMONS et al., Defendants. Lane County Circuit Court 21AD0013; A176865 508 P3d 996

Bradley A. Cascagnette, Judge. Hamid Michael Hejazi filed the brief pro se. Before James, Presiding Judge, and Aoyagi, Judge, and Joyce, Judge. PER CURIAM Reversed and remanded. Cite as 318 Or App 668 (2022) 669

PER CURIAM Plaintiff appeals from a circuit court denial of his application for a filing fee waiver. See Hejazi v. Gifford, 314 Or App 534, 535, 499 P3d 151 (2021) (explaining that orders denying fee deferrals are appealable orders under ORS 19.205(2)). We reverse. When a trial court denies a fee waiver based on the face of the application, we review for legal error. Hejazi, 314 Or App at 535. “More specifically, * * * we accept as true the representations in the application and determine whether those facts demonstrate that the applicant satisfies the stat- utory requirements for a fee waiver.” Id. When an adult in custody, like plaintiff, files suit against a public body, fee waivers or deferrals are governed by ORS 30.643. However, for suits against nonpublic bodies, fee waivers, even for adults in custody, are governed by ORS 21.682. In Bondick v. Lane County Circuit Court we held: “Although that statute, by its terms, grants a trial court discretion to deny a requested fee waiver, we have held that, where an applicant’s submissions show that the appli- cant is eligible for a fee waiver, in the absence of competing evidence or ‘any findings of fact or conclusions of law pro- vided by the court to explain its decision,’ a court’s denial of a requested waiver is an abuse of discretion. Stanwood v. Multnomah County, 135 Or App 58, 61, 898 P2d 196 (1995).” 315 Or App 600, 601-02, 501 P3d 91 (2021). Here, plaintiff was not suing a public body. And, as in Bondick, the face of the application establishes that appellant qualifies for a waiver. Accordingly, “the court lack[ed] the discretion to deny it without further developing the record or providing an explanation for the denial.” Id. at 602. We therefore reverse and remand as in Bondick. Reversed and remanded.