Case Name: ARLEN PORTER SMITH, Francis T. Rothauge, Leslie A. Whaley, Gilbert L. Lane and Donald Sager, Petitioners, v. OREGON STATE PENITENTIARY and Oregon State Department of Corrections, Respondents
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1992-06-03
Citations: 113 Or. App. 386
Docket Number: CA A68333
Parties: ARLEN PORTER SMITH, Francis T. Rothauge, Leslie A. Whaley, Gilbert L. Lane and Donald Sager, Petitioners, v. OREGON STATE PENITENTIARY and Oregon State Department of Corrections, Respondents.
Judges: Before Buttler, Presiding Judge, and Rossman and De Muniz, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 113
Pages: 386–387

Head Matter:
Submitted on record and briefs March 26,
petition for judicial review dismissed June 3, 1992
ARLEN PORTER SMITH, Francis T. Rothauge, Leslie A. Whaley, Gilbert L. Lane and Donald Sager, Petitioners, v. OREGON STATE PENITENTIARY and Oregon State Department of Corrections, Respondents.
(CA A68333)
832 P2d 1270
Arlen Porter Smith, Francis T. Rothauge, Leslie A. Whaley, Gilbert L. Lane and Donald Sager filed the brief pro sese.
Charles S. Crookham, Attorney General, Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, and Richard D. Wasserman, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, filed the brief for respondents.
Before Buttler, Presiding Judge, and Rossman and De Muniz, Judges.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Respondents issued two directives: one precluded inmates from retaining custody of videotapes of legal proceedings and the other announced priorities for inmate access to the law library. Petitioners challenge the validity of those directives under ORS 183.400, arguing that they have the effect of amending existing administrative rules without complying with the Oregon Administrative Procedures Act (APA). The first directive concerning inmate access to videotapes has been superseded by OAR 291-139-045, which was adopted in compliance with the APA. Challenge to that directive is, therefore, moot. The second directive is excluded from the definition of a "rule" under ORS 183.310(8)(f), because failure to follow it cannot result in disciplinary action. Accordingly, it is not reviewable under ORS 183.400.
Petition for judicial review dismissed.