Tyrrell v. Maass
This text of 808 P.2d 732 (Tyrrell v. Maass) 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
This is a habeas corpus action. Without reaching the merits, the circuit court dismissed the writ that it had previously issued. We affirm.
In his replication, plaintiff alleges that he has multiple chronic medical problems, including obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary disease with chest pain and mild congestive heart failure and that defendant is aware of those conditions. Plaintiff also alleges that he is suffering from “unknown effects” of radiation experiments in which he participated in the years 1963 to 1973. He believes that his heart condition “may” be the result of, or be aggravated by the effects of, those experiments. Defendant refuses to allow plaintiff to be evaluated by qualified professionals of the Oregon Health Sciences University or by other qualified professionals not employed by the Corrections Division.
Plaintiff claims that an evaluation is required by Oregon Laws 1987, chapter 486 (the act),1 and that defendant’s refusal to comply with the act subjects him to cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment and Article I, section 16, of the Oregon Constitution. He asks the court to order defendant to provide him with annual evaluation examinations as provided for under the act and to allow him to [568]*568receive care and treatment by the appropriate professionals for his heart condition, if they determine that he suffers from a condition that is directly related to the radiation experiments.
The threshold issue is whether plaintiffs claim is sufficient for habeas corpus relief. The circuit court concluded that it is not, and we agree. Plaintiffs replication fails to demonstrate a need for immediate judicial scrutiny and relief. He alleges only that his chronic heart ailments, for which he is already receiving treatment, “may” be related to or aggravated by experimental radiation exposure. He seeks an order mandating annual evaluations provided for in the act. Although plaintiff is entitled to those evaluations, he has not alleged any need for immediate judicial scrutiny when the relief sought is an order for an examination that must be provided annually.
Because one of the two “essential elements” that must “coincide” under the test established in Penrod/Brown v. Cupp, 283 Or 21, 28, 581 P2d 934 (1978), is not present, we need not discuss whether alternative remedies are adequate. We hold that the claim is not a basis for habeas corpus relief, because there is no showing of a need for immediate judicial scrutiny.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
808 P.2d 732, 106 Or. App. 565, 1991 Ore. App. LEXIS 554, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tyrrell-v-maass-orctapp-1991.