Case ID: or-app_264/html/0462-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Submitted June 6,
    OAR 291-105-0005(3)(d), OAR 291-127-0320(2)(e), OAR 291-158-0005(3)(b), OAR 291-180-0252(2), and OAR 291-180-0262(2) held valid July 30, 2014
    JUSTIN BARTHELL, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent.
    
    Department of Corrections
    A155232
    332 P3d 369
    Justin Barthell filed the brief pro se.
    
    Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Anna M. Joyce, Solicitor General, and Joña J. Maukonen, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
    Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and DeVore, Judge, and Garrett, Judge.
    PER CURIAM
   PER CURIAM

As allowed by ORS 183.400, petitioner seeks a judicial determination of the validity of five administrative rules adopted by the Oregon Department of Corrections (DOC): OAR 291-105-0005(3)(d), OAR 291-127-0320(2)(e), OAR 291-158-0005(3)(b), OAR 291-180-0252(2), and OAR 291-180-0262(2). Petitioner contends that DOC exceeded its rulemaking authority when it expressly provided in the rules that they could be applied retroactively. Having reviewed petitioner’s arguments, we conclude that DOC did not exceed its statutory authority in promulgating the rules. For two of those administrative rules for which he seeks review, OAR 291-180-0252(2) and OAR 291-180-0262(2), petitioner also asserts that DOC’s notice did not alert affected individuals that the rules would apply retroactively and, therefore, the notice was legally insufficient. We conclude that the notice was not insufficient.

OAR 291-105-0005(3)(d), OAR 291-127-0320(2)(e), OAR 291-158-0005(3)(b), OAR 291-180-0252(2), and OAR 291-180-0262(2) held valid.