As noted, defendant argues that where, as here, an inmate initially was imprisoned under a lawful judgment, only a violation of the inmate's constitutional rights will support a habeas corpus claim asserting that any continued imprisonment is unlawful. Defendant relies on Bahrenfus v. Bachik, 106 Or. App. 46, 806 P.2d 170, rev den 311 Or. 643 (1991). In Bahrenfus, the plaintiffs alleged that, although they were within the jurisdiction of the Psychiatric Security Review Board, they were deprived of "the right to treatment under Oregon statutes and administrative rules."

Immediate judicial scrutiny is not required. See Bahrenfus v. Bachik, 106 Or. App. 46, 806 P.2d 170 (1991). Affirmed.

Accordingly, immediate judicial scrutiny is not required. Jones v. Maass, 106 Or. App. 42, 806 P.2d 168, rev den 311 Or. 426 (1991); see also Bahrenfus v. Bachik, 106 Or. App. 46, 806 P.2d 170 (1991). Accordingly, the court did not err when it dismissed the writ and gave judgment for defendant.

Here, on the other hand, plaintiff's alcoholism and mental illness, as he has alleged the facts, do not create a risk to him of serious and immediate harm. Immediate judicial scrutiny is not required. See also Bahrenfus v. Bachik, 106 Or. App. 46, 806 P.2d 170 (1991). Accordingly, the court did not err when it dismissed the writ and gave judgment for defendant.