# Brown v. Highberger

> Court of Appeals of Oregon · May 30, 2024 · 332 Or. App. 767

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10610849

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Oregon
- **Decided:** May 30, 2024
- **Citations:** 332 Or. App. 767
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Lagesen
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10610849

## Opinion text

No. 351 May 30, 2024 767

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion
pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited
except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE
STATE OF OREGON

STEPHEN LEE BROWN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Joshua HIGHBERGER,
Superintendent,
Oregon State Correctional Institution,
Defendant-Respondent.
Marion County Circuit Court
22CV01974; A181641

David E. Leith, Judge.
Submitted April 16, 2024.
Jason Weber and Equal Justice Law filed the brief for
appellant.
Jona J. Maukonen, Assistant Attorney General, waived
appearance for respondent.
Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge.
LAGESEN, C. J.
Affirmed.
768 Brown v. Highberger

LAGESEN, C. J.
Plaintiff appeals from a judgment denying habeas
corpus relief. His appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to
ORAP 5.90 and State v. Balfour, 311 Or 434, 814 P2d 1069
(1991). The brief does not contain a Section B. See ORAP
5.90(1)(b). We affirm.1
Plaintiff is an adult in custody. Plaintiff was found
to be in possession of forged documents and disciplined.
In his replication, plaintiff argued that he was disciplined
in retaliation for filing grievances and complaints against
prison officials and that his First Amendment rights were
violated. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court
entered its judgment denying relief. The trial court found
that the issue was moot because plaintiff had completed the
sanction, and, on the merits, that there had been no vio-
lation of plaintiff’s First Amendment rights or retaliation
against him for engaging in protected speech.
Having reviewed the record, including the trial
court file and the transcript of the hearings, and having
reviewed the Balfour brief, we have identified no arguably
meritorious issues.
Affirmed.

1
As authorized by ORS 2.570(2)(b), this matter is determined by a two-judge
panel. See, e.g., State v. Yother, 310 Or App 563, 484 P3d 1098 (2021) (deciding
matter submitted through Balfour process by two-judge panel); Ballinger v.
Nooth, 254 Or App 402, 295 P3d 115 (2012), rev den, 353 Or 747 (2013) (same).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10610849. Public record. Not legal advice.