# Brown v. Miller

> Court of Appeals of Oregon · November 27, 2024 · 336 Or. App. 460

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10751552

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Oregon
- **Decided:** November 27, 2024
- **Citations:** 336 Or. App. 460
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Lagesen
- **Cited by:** 2 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/10751552

## Opinion text

460 November 27, 2024 No. 852

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion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.
Jamie MILLER,
Superintendent,
Snake River Correctional Institution,
Defendant-Respondent.
Malheur County Circuit Court
24CV17383; A184547

Erin K. Landis, Judge.
Submitted October 11, 2024.
Jedediah Peterson and Equal Justice Law, filed the brief
for appellant.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Denise G. Fjordbeck, Assistant
Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge.
LAGESEN, C. J.
Judgment dismissing writ of habeas corpus vacated and
remanded.
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 336 Or App 460 (2024) 461

LAGESEN, C. J.
In this appeal from a judgment dismissing a pro se
petition for a writ of habeas corpus, plaintiff assigns error
to the court’s failure to address his motion for appointment
of counsel. Defendant concedes the error. We agree with and
accept the concession. We vacate the judgment and remand
for the habeas court to rule on the motion for appointment of
counsel.1
Under ORS 34.355, courts have discretionary and
implicit authority to appoint counsel for indigent petitioners
in habeas cases. Stelz v. Cain, 325 Or App 560, 562, 529 P3d
284 (2023). Here, when plaintiff filed his habeas petition, he
also filed a motion for appointment of counsel. In response
to the court’s order to show cause why the writ should not
be allowed, defendant moved to deny the petition arguing
that plaintiff failed to allege that he was currently subject
to the conditions of which he complained, and that plaintiff
failed to allege the kind of injury required for habeas relief.
The habeas court granted the motion and entered a general
judgment of dismissal. However, there is no indication that
the court considered or ruled on the motion for appointment
of counsel.
As we explained in Stelz, 325 Or App at 565, when
a plaintiff files a motion to appoint counsel in a habeas case,
the plaintiff is not entitled to have an attorney appointed,
but the plaintiff is entitled to “a ruling with sufficient expla-
nation on the record in response to his motion to appoint
counsel.” That did not occur here. Therefore, like in Stelz, we
vacate the judgment of dismissal and remand for the habeas
court to rule on the motion for appointment of counsel and
make a record of its exercise of discretion.
Judgment dismissing writ of habeas corpus vacated
and remanded.

1
As authorized by ORS 2.570(2)(b), this matter is determined by a two-judge
panel.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10751552. Public record. Not legal advice.