Durham v. Laney

In order to “support a claim for medical habeas relief,” a prisoner must allege facts which show that he or she “has a serious medical need that has not been treated in a timely and proper manner and that prison officials have been deliberately indifferent to the prisoner’s serious medical needs.” Billings v. Gates, 323 Or 167, 180-81, 916 P2d 291 (1996).

Durham appealed the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.  On appeal, Durham argued that he stated a claim for relief, namely that Laney—Superintendent of the Oregon State Correctional Institution (OSCI)—denied Durham “constitutionally adequate medical treatment” for his physical and psychological disabilities.  In response, Laney argued that the only issue Durham raised was OSCI’s failure to provide a single cell; Durham did not raise issues related to his other disabilities.  In order to “support a claim for medical habeas relief,” a prisoner must allege facts which show that he or she “has a serious medical need that has not been treated in a timely and proper manner and that prison officials have been deliberately indifferent to the prisoner’s serious medical needs.”  Billings v. Gates, 323 Or 167, 180-81, 916 P2d 291 (1996).   The Court found that Durham’s medical evidence showed that he had serious medical needs.  Further, the accommodations previously provided to Durham at the Oregon State Penitentiary established that OSCI did not treat Durham’s needs in a “timely and proper manner” and that prison officials were “deliberately indifferent” to those needs.  Therefore, the Court held that Durham’s allegations supported “a claim for medical habeas relief.”  Reversed and remanded.