Norby v. Santiam Correctional Institution
This text of 841 P.2d 1 (Norby v. Santiam Correctional Institution) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Petitioner filed a petition for judicial review of a March 16, 1992, disciplinary order. ORS 421.195 requires that the petition be filed within 30 days of the date of the order. We received the petition on April 17, 1992, and dismissed it as untimely filed. We grant the motion to reconsider.
Petitioner argues that, under Houston v. Lack, 487 US 266, 108 S Ct 2379, 101 L Ed 2d 245 (1988), a document mailed by an inmate is to be considered filed when it is given to prison staff for mailing. He argues that his petition was timely, because the time stamp shows that the Department of Corrections received it on April 13, 1992, at 3:34 p.m.
Lack was decided under federal law, 28 USC § 2107; FRAP 4(q)(1), and is not controlling. ORS 19.028 applies to petitions for judicial review. ORS 19.028(3). “Filing” of a petition for review may be accomplished by mail. However, timeliness depends on the date of mailing, if the notice is sent by registered or certified mail. Otherwise, filing occurs on the date that the petition is received by the court.
Petitioner makes no federal or state constitutional arguments.
Motion to reconsider allowed; order of dismissal adhered to.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
841 P.2d 1, 116 Or. App. 239, 1992 Ore. App. LEXIS 2019, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/norby-v-santiam-correctional-institution-orctapp-1992.