Case Name: DUNCAN C. FELLER, Appellant, v. WRIGHT, Respondent
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1989-11-08
Citations: 99 Or. App. 379
Docket Number: CV88-718; CA A60277
Parties: DUNCAN C. FELLER, Appellant, v. WRIGHT, Respondent.
Judges: Before Buttler, Presiding Judge, and Warren and Rossman, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 99
Pages: 379–380

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted September 25,
reversed and remanded November 8, 1989,
reconsideration denied January 26,
petition for review allowed by memorandum opinion May 10,1990
See 310 Or 58 (1990)
DUNCAN C. FELLER, Appellant, v. WRIGHT, Respondent.
(CV88-718; CA A60277)
781 P2d 1273
Kurt C. Bendixsen, Hermiston, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Garry L. Reynolds, P.C., Hermiston.
Wendy Jo Paris, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.
Before Buttler, Presiding Judge, and Warren and Rossman, Judges.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff, an inmate at Eastern Oregon Correctional Institution, appeals from the dismissal of his claim for habeas corpus relief after the trial court granted defendant's ORCP 21 A(l) motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Because "any motion practice other than an ORS 34.680 motion to strike is inappropriate in habeas corpus actions," the trial court erred in entertaining defendant's motion to dismiss. Bedell v. Schiedler, 307 Or 562, 566, 770 P2d 909 (1989); Lane v. Maass, 98 Or App 75, 778 P2d 503 (1989).
Reversed and remanded.