From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Slopak v. Cupp

Oregon Court of Appeals
Nov 20, 1973
513 P.2d 531 (Or. Ct. App. 1973)

Summary

In Slopak v. Cupp, 14 Or. App. 512, 513 P.2d 531, Sup Ct review denied (1973), petitioner, an inmate in the penitentiary, brought a habeas corpus proceeding for himself and other inmates to compel prison officials to provide inmates with copying equipment for use in preparing court filings.

Summary of this case from Rose v. Cupp

Opinion

No. 78944

Argued July 24, 1973

Affirmed August 27, 1973 Petition for rehearing denied September 26, 1973 Petition for review denied November 20, 1973

Appeal from Circuit Court, Marion County.

DUANE R. ERTSGAARD, Judge.

David H. Blunt, Salem, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.

Scott McAlister, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Lee Johnson, Attorney General, and John W. Osburn, Solicitor General, Salem.

Before SCHWAB, Chief Judge, and LANGTRY and THORNTON, Judges.


AFFIRMED.


Petitioner, a prisoner, for himself and others similarly situated brought this proceeding on alleged constitutional grounds for a writ of habeas corpus to require officials of Oregon state prison to provide copying equipment for use by inmates in preparing legal documents for court filings. The petition was dismissed in circuit court because it failed to state grounds for relief, and petitioner appeals.

Habeas corpus is authorized in ORS 34.310 et seq. Petitioner points to no provision therein allowing relief of the nature sought. However, in Newton v. Cupp, 3 Or. App. 434, 437, 474 P.2d 532 (1970), we held

"* * * that habeas corpus is available in Oregon to test the constitutionality of treatment afforded an inmate * * *."

An examination of Oregon's statutes does not disclose that pleadings authorized in court proceedings by inmates require copying, or if they do, that provision is not made therefor. ORS 137.240 (1) (a) eliminates court proceedings for inmates except those hereafter mentioned.

If an inmate is prosecuted, or if he takes a direct appeal from a conviction, private counsel or public defenders are provided for indigent prisoners and expenses for legal documents are paid by the state or respective counties. ORS 135.330; 138.300; 138.480; 138.500. If original habeas corpus proceedings are commenced without aid of counsel, copies are not required (ORS 34.310 et seq.) — none was required in this case. And if post-conviction relief is sought, copies may be dispensed with on claim of indigency, and counsel and expenses are paid for by respective counties or the state through the Public Defender's office. ORS 138.580; 138.590. Thus, the counsel provided in any of these instances can do necessary copying and be reimbursed therefor. We conclude that petitioner's allegations as a matter of law and on their face present no cause for relief.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Slopak v. Cupp

Oregon Court of Appeals
Nov 20, 1973
513 P.2d 531 (Or. Ct. App. 1973)

In Slopak v. Cupp, 14 Or. App. 512, 513 P.2d 531, Sup Ct review denied (1973), petitioner, an inmate in the penitentiary, brought a habeas corpus proceeding for himself and other inmates to compel prison officials to provide inmates with copying equipment for use in preparing court filings.

Summary of this case from Rose v. Cupp
Case details for

Slopak v. Cupp

Case Details

Full title:LARRY R. SLOPAK, Appellant, v. CUPP ET AL, Respondents

Court:Oregon Court of Appeals

Date published: Nov 20, 1973

Citations

513 P.2d 531 (Or. Ct. App. 1973)
513 P.2d 531

Citing Cases

Rose v. Cupp

In Oregon we think it clear that the legislature by its repeal of civil death statutes and the granting of…

Bekins v. Cupp

Under such circumstances habeas corpus is not appropriate. See Slopak v. Cupp, 14 Or. App. 512, 513 P.2d 531,…