Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
ROLAND LEE SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jeff PREMO, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary, Defendant-Respondent.
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff appeals the trial court's judgment dismissing his 2015 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Plaintiff previously petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus in 2013, and the trial court dismissed that petition without prejudice for failure to state a claim. The trial court dismissed plaintiff's 2015 petition on its own motion, concluding that plaintiff's claims were “duplicative of *** claim[s] previously con-sidered and dismissed by this court” in the 2013 petition. See ORS 34.710 (“No question once finally determined upon a proceeding by habeas corpus shall be reexamined upon another proceeding of the same kind.”). Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in concluding that he was precluded from asserting the same claims in the 2015 petition.
Defendant agrees with plaintiff. According to both parties, the trial court erred because plaintiff's 2013 petition was dismissed without prejudice, which does not preclude plaintiff from raising the same claims in the 2015 petition. See Clark v. Gates, 138 Or App 160, 165, 906 P2d 863 (1995) (“A dismissal without prejudice cannot give rise to claim preclusion.”); see also Fort v. Persson, 275 Or App 573, 574, 364 P3d 357 (2015) (accepting defendant's concession that the trial court erred by dismissing plaintiff's habeas petition on claim preclusion grounds because earlier dismissals were without prejudice). Defendant concedes that we should reverse and remand the trial court's judgment. We accept defendant's concession. Accordingly, we reverse and remand the judgment of dismissal.
Reversed and remanded.
PER CURIAM
Thank you for your feedback!
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.
Docket No: A159336
Decided: June 14, 2017
Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)