noting that Grimm is “in har- mony with the Ninth Circuit’s view” set forth in Thompson
How later courts described this case
- noting that Grimm is “in har- mony with the Ninth Circuit’s view” set forth in Thompson
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
159
Argued and submitted November 12, affirmed December 23, 2020, petition for
review denied May 6, 2021 (368 Or 138)
RANDALL SHANE GREEN,
Petitioner,
v.
BOARD OF PAROLE
AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION,
Respondent.
Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
A169884
478 P3d 608
John Evans, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause
for petitioner. Also on the opening and reply briefs was
Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, Office of Public Defense Services. Randall Green
filed the supplemental brief pro se.
Kirsten M. Naito, Assistant Attorney General, argued
the cause for respondent. Also on the brief were Ellen F.
Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General.
Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and James, Judge, and
Kamins, Judge.
PER CURIAM
Affirmed.
160 Green v. Board of Parole
PER CURIAM
Petitioner seeks judicial review of a final order of
the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision. In that
order, the board deferred petitioner’s release date under
ORS 144.125(3) upon finding that petitioner had “a present
severe emotional disturbance [(PSED)] that constitutes a
danger to the health or safety of the community.”
On review, petitioner contends primarily that the
use of the PSED standard under ORS 144.125(3) violates
Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and
also the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Those arguments run
contrary to our decisions in Grimm v. Board of Parole, 258
Or App 595, 598, 310 P3d 736 (2013), rev den, 354 Or 699
(2014), and McCline v. Board of Parole, 205 Or App 144,
148, 133 P3d 349, rev den, 342 Or 46 (2006), and we are not
persuaded that those decisions are plainly wrong. In that
regard, we note that our decisions are in harmony with the
Ninth Circuit’s view. See Thompson v. Davis, 295 F3d 890,
898 n 4 (9th Cir 2002) (addressing ADA question).
Petitioner also contends that the board’s determi-
nation that he has a PSED that constitutes a danger to the
health or safety of the community is not supported by sub-
stantial evidence or substantial reason. We reject that con-
tention without further discussion.
Affirmed.