Haynes v. Board of Parole
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
578 June 3, 2015 No. 259 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON MICHAEL ROBERT HAYNES, Petitioner, v. OREGON BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION, Respondent. Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision A157908 Submitted April 3, 2015. Michael R. Haynes filed the briefs pro se. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Anna M. Joyce, Solicitor General, and Patrick M. Ebbett, Senior Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Duncan, Presiding Judge, and Lagesen, Judge, and Flynn, Judge. PER CURIAM OAR 255-062-0021(2)(c)(C) held valid. Cite as 271 Or App 578 (2015) 579 PER CURIAM Pursuant to ORS 183.400, petitioner challenges the validity of OAR 255-062-0021(2)(c)(C), part of a rule of the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision that governs requests for interim hearings when the board has deferred an inmate’s next hearing for more than two years. Under the board’s rule, the petition for an interim hearing must include a copy of certain documents, including a copy of the inmate’s “Spending Account,” or the petition will be denied. OAR 255-062-0021(2)(c)(C); OAR 255-062-0021(2)(f). According to petitioner, the board violated his constitutional rights by considering his Spending Account and relying on “the circumstances surrounding his financial standing” to deny his petition for an interim hearing. To the extent that petitioner argues that OAR 255062-0021(2)(c)(C) can be applied unconstitutionally in particular circumstances, such a challenge is not authorized under ORS 183.400. See AFSCME Local 2623 v. Dept. of Corrections, 315 Or 74, 79, 843 P2d 409 (1992) (explaining that ORS 183.400 authorizes only facial challenges to agency rules; “the legality of any particular application of the rules is premature, and not subject to review under ORS 183.400”). Petitioner does not sufficiently develop any argument as to why the rule is facially invalid, and we therefore reject his petition. OAR 255-062-0021(2)(c)(C) held valid.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
