Johnson v. Doe

                                756

        Submitted December 23, 2019, affirmed January 15, 2020


                 Martin Allen JOHNSON,
                    Plaintiff-Appellant,
                              v.
                        John DOE,
                Jane Doe, and WCSO Staff,
                 Defendants-Respondents.
              Washington County Circuit Court
                   18CV27219; A168366
                             

  Andrew Erwin, Judge.
   Jedediah Peterson and O’Connor Weber LLC filed the
opening brief for appellant. Martin Allen Johnson filed the
supplemental brief pro se.
  Elmer M. Dickens waived appearance for respondents.
  Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and Powers, Judge, and
Brewer, Senior Judge.
  PER CURIAM
  Affirmed.
Cite as 

 (2020)                                                   757

           PER CURIAM
         Plaintiff petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus,
challenging his detention in the Washington County Jail.
Eleven days later, the trial court, acting on its own motion
under ORS 34.370(6), entered a judgment dismissing the
petition. In full, the judgment stated:
       “A Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus was filed on July 2,
    2018.
        “It is therefore, ORDERED and ADJUDGED the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED per ORS
    34.370(6).”
(Capitalization in original.)
         On appeal, plaintiff argues that the trial court’s
dismissal was in error because the court did not give its
reasons for the dismissal, something that is required of the
court when it dismisses a habeas petition on its own motion
under ORS 34.370(6). As plaintiff points out, ORS 34.370(3)
states: “The judgment shall explain to the parties the reason for the denial.” This means, we have said, that “[a] trial
court may dismiss a meritless petition on its own motion as
long as it states its reason for the denial and indicates the
petition’s shortcomings so that they can be remedied.” Frady
v. Morrow, 

, 253 n 2, 

 (2000) (internal quotation marks omitted).
         Plaintiff is correct that the trial court erred by dismissing the petition without giving its reasons. However,
that error is not a reversible one—in other words, is
harmless—“if it is evident from the face of the plaintiff’s
petition that the dismissal ultimately is correct.” 

.
Here, plaintiff’s petition is a single-page document1 that
alleges no facts that would permit the conclusion that his
detention is unlawful or that habeas corpus proceedings are
a proper way for plaintiff to challenge his detention. Apart
from a conclusory allegation that his detention is unlawful, the petition alleges simply that plaintiff is a pretrial
detainee awaiting a new trial on a charge or charges for
   1
     The single-page document that plaintiff filed indicates that it is “Page 1 of 3.”
Perhaps plaintiff alleged additional facts on other pages, but he did not file those
pages as part of the petition.
758                                           Johnson v. Doe

which he has been indicted. Liberally construed, those bare
facts do not state a claim for habeas relief. For that reason,
the trial court’s failure to identify the reasons for its dismissal is harmless.
         Plaintiff has also submitted a pro se supplemental
brief on appeal in which he argues the merits as to why he
is entitled to habeas relief. Those arguments, however, go
far beyond what plaintiff presented to the trial court in his
one-page habeas petition and consequently do not identify
grounds for reversing the trial court’s judgment of dismissal.
        Affirmed.