BARTHELL v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (2014)

Court of Appeals of Oregon.

Justin BARTHELL, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent.

No. A155232.

Decided: July 30, 2014

Before ORTEGA, Presiding Judge, and DeVORE, Judge, and GARRETT, Judge.

Justin Barthell filed the brief pro se. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Anna M. Joyce, Solicitor General, and Jona J. Maukonen, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

As allowed by ORS 183.400, petitioner seeks a judicial determination of the validity of five administrative rules adopted by the Oregon Department of Corrections (DOC): OAR 291–105–0005(3)(d), OAR 291–127–0320(2)(e), OAR 291–158–0005(3)(b), OAR 291–180–0252(2), and OAR 291–180–0262(2). Petitioner contends that DOC exceeded its rulemaking authority when it expressly provided in the rules that they could be applied retroactively. Having reviewed petitioner's arguments, we conclude that DOC did not exceed its statutory authority in promulgating the rules. For two of those administrative rules for which he seeks review, OAR 291–180–0252(2) and OAR 291–180–0262(2), petitioner also asserts that DOC's notice did not alert affected individuals that the rules would apply retroactively and, therefore, the notice was legally insufficient. We conclude that the notice was not insufficient.

OAR 291–105–0005(3)(d), OAR 291–127–0320(2)(e), OAR 291–158–0005(3)(b), OAR 291–180–0252(2), and OAR 291–180–0262(2) held valid.

PER CURIAM.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network