×
You have no more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Failure to Disassociate Noninfractable
A prisoner sought judicial review of a disciplinary hearing finding him guilty of advocating, creating, engaging in or promoting a disturbance.
There was indeed a disturbance, the court found, but a violation of the rule is only shown by an inmate engaging in "some affirmative action" related to the disturbance. In this case, the hearing officer found only that the prisoner failed "to dissociate himself from the disturbance." Evidence was that prisoner merely remained sitting on his bunk. This was insufficient to support a finding of violation of the rule. Murphy v. OSCI, 790 P.2d 1179 (Ore. 1990).
There was indeed a disturbance, the court found, but a violation of the rule is only shown by an inmate engaging in "some affirmative action" related to the disturbance. In this case, the hearing officer found only that the prisoner failed "to dissociate himself from the disturbance." Evidence was that prisoner merely remained sitting on his bunk. This was insufficient to support a finding of violation of the rule. Murphy v. OSCI, 790 P.2d 1179 (Ore. 1990).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Murphy v. Oregon State Correctional Institution
| Year | 1990 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 790 P.2d 1179 (OR 1990) |
| Level | State Court of Appeals |
| Attorney Fees | 0 |
| Damages | 0 |
| Injunction Status | N/A |
Murphy v. Oregon State Correctional Institution, 101 Or.App. 354, 790 P.2d 1179 (Or.App. 04/25/1990)
[1] COURT OF APPEALS OF OREGON
[2] Nos. 11-91F, CA A50969
[3] 1990, 101 Or. App. 354; 790 P.2d 1179
[4] April 25, 1990
[5] STANLEY N. MURPHY, PETITIONER,
v.
OREGON STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, RESPONDENT
[6] On petitioner's motion for reconsideration filed January 3, motion for reconsideration allowed; former decision (98 Or App 167, 780 P2d 258); Judicial Review from Corrections Division. No. 11-91F.
[7] Stanley N. Murphy, Salem, for motion pro se. No appearance contra.
[8] Buttler, Presiding Judge, and Warren and Rossman, Judges.
[9] Buttler
[101 OrApp Page 356]
[10] On judicial review of a final order of the Superintendent of the Oregon State Correctional Institution finding petitioner guilty of disruptive behavior (Rule 1), we affirmed without opinion. We allow his motion for reconsideration and reverse.
[11] Petitioner was charged with violations of Rules 1, 6 and 10. Having found him guilty of violation of Rule 1, the hearings officer did not consider the other violations charged; they were dismissed. OAR 291-105-015(1), as relevant, provides:
[12] "Disruptive Behavior:
[13] "(a) No inmate shall advocate, create, engage in, or encourage, promote, a disturbance.
[14] "(b) A disturbance is the creation or maintenance of an unreasonably annoying condition or disorder, characterized by unruly, noisy or violent conduct or unauthorized group activity which disrupts the orderly administration of or poses a direct threat to the security of a facility, facility program(s) or the safety of personnel."
[15] There is no doubt that there was a disturbance. However, for there to be a violation, the rule requires that an inmate engage in some affirmative action related to the disturbance. The hearings officer found only that petitioner failed to dissociate himself from the disturbance. Confidential statements from other inmates indicate that petitioner played no active rule; he remained sitting on his bunk. There is, therefore, no substantial evidence that he violated Rule 1. Read v. OSCI, 99 Or App 507, 783 P2d 27 (1989).
[16] Motion for reconsideration allowed; former decision withdrawn; reversed.
[17] Disposition
[18] Motion for reconsideration allowed; former decision withdrawn; reversed.
[1] COURT OF APPEALS OF OREGON
[2] Nos. 11-91F, CA A50969
[3] 1990, 101 Or. App. 354; 790 P.2d 1179
[4] April 25, 1990
[5] STANLEY N. MURPHY, PETITIONER,
v.
OREGON STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, RESPONDENT
[6] On petitioner's motion for reconsideration filed January 3, motion for reconsideration allowed; former decision (98 Or App 167, 780 P2d 258); Judicial Review from Corrections Division. No. 11-91F.
[7] Stanley N. Murphy, Salem, for motion pro se. No appearance contra.
[8] Buttler, Presiding Judge, and Warren and Rossman, Judges.
[9] Buttler
[101 OrApp Page 356]
[10] On judicial review of a final order of the Superintendent of the Oregon State Correctional Institution finding petitioner guilty of disruptive behavior (Rule 1), we affirmed without opinion. We allow his motion for reconsideration and reverse.
[11] Petitioner was charged with violations of Rules 1, 6 and 10. Having found him guilty of violation of Rule 1, the hearings officer did not consider the other violations charged; they were dismissed. OAR 291-105-015(1), as relevant, provides:
[12] "Disruptive Behavior:
[13] "(a) No inmate shall advocate, create, engage in, or encourage, promote, a disturbance.
[14] "(b) A disturbance is the creation or maintenance of an unreasonably annoying condition or disorder, characterized by unruly, noisy or violent conduct or unauthorized group activity which disrupts the orderly administration of or poses a direct threat to the security of a facility, facility program(s) or the safety of personnel."
[15] There is no doubt that there was a disturbance. However, for there to be a violation, the rule requires that an inmate engage in some affirmative action related to the disturbance. The hearings officer found only that petitioner failed to dissociate himself from the disturbance. Confidential statements from other inmates indicate that petitioner played no active rule; he remained sitting on his bunk. There is, therefore, no substantial evidence that he violated Rule 1. Read v. OSCI, 99 Or App 507, 783 P2d 27 (1989).
[16] Motion for reconsideration allowed; former decision withdrawn; reversed.
[17] Disposition
[18] Motion for reconsideration allowed; former decision withdrawn; reversed.