Garges v. Premo

Under ORS 34.320, if a habeas plaintiff has been transferred to a different facility, the court shall “transfer the case to the jurisdiction in which the other institution is located, unless the court ‘determines that by reason of the plaintiff’s transfer the claims *** do not require immediate judicial scrutiny or are otherwise subject to dismissal’” which are to be determined on a case by case basis.

Plaintiff appealed the decision by the trial court in denial of his writ of habeas corpus. Plaintiff assigned error to the finding that his case became moot once he was transferred to a different facility. On appeal, Plaintiff argued that his habeas claim was not moot because he continued to suffer from lack of medical care despite being transferred. Defendant, in response, argued that once Plaintiff was transferred to a different prison, they did not have any control or custody over his medical care. Under ORS 34.320, if a habeas plaintiff has been transferred to a different facility, the court shall “transfer the case to the jurisdiction in which the other institution is located, unless the court ‘determines that by reason of the plaintiff’s transfer the claims do not require immediate judicial scrutiny or are otherwise subject to dismissal’” which are to be determined on a case by case basis. The Court held that although Defendant was correct in asserting that they were not the proper party to this action once the transfer occurred, they did not make a valid determination in finding that the requested relief was unavailable because Plaintiff continued to suffer from lack of medical care and the Defendant conceded at the trial level that the “substance of plaintiff’s claim did not necessarily become moot upon transfer”.  Reversed and remanded for further proceeding.