Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

314 Or. App. 99

Boardman v. Does 1-8

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided August 18, 2021

Court of Appeals of Oregon · decided 2021-08-18

Applies OR 30 § 30.643

Affirmed · Decided 2021-08-18

                                 99

         Submitted February 7, 2020, affirmed August 18, 2021


             LOUIS SAMUEL BOARDMAN,
                    Plaintiff-Appellant,
                              v.
                John and Jane DOES 1 - 8,
             Sgt. Clayton, Cpt. D. Heehn, and
            Oregon Department of Corrections,
                 Defendants-Respondents.
              Umatilla County Circuit Court
                   19CV38607; A172241
                             
493 P3d 543


  Eva J. Temple, Judge.
   Louis Samuel Boardman filed the brief for appellant
pro se.
  Jona J. Maukonen, Assistant Attorney General, waived
appearance for respondents.
  Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Tookey, Judge, and
Aoyagi, Judge.
  PER CURIAM
  Affirmed.
100                                    Boardman v. Does 1-8

        PER CURIAM
          Plaintiff, an adult in custody at Two Rivers
Correctional Institution, brought a civil action against the
Department of Corrections, two corrections officers, and
unnamed defendants and applied for waiver or deferral
of filing fees. The trial court entered a limited judgment
against plaintiff, ordering deferral of the filing fees and that
the filing fees will be drawn from plaintiff’s correctional-facility trust account. See ORS 30.643(3) (providing that a
court may waive the fees and court costs of the adult in custody, who seeks a civil action against a public body, only if
the court determines that the adult in custody has no funds
and will not have funds after reviewing deposits in the plaintiff’s correctional-facility trust account). Plaintiff appeals
the limited judgment, arguing that the trial court abused
its discretion and legally erred when it denied waiver of the
filing fees without holding a hearing to determine if plaintiff had the ability to pay them. On this day, we rejected a
similar argument in Smith v. Dept. of Corrections (A170818),
314 Or App 1
, 
496 P3d 1073
 (2021), and we likewise do so
here.
        Affirmed.

/314/orapp/99 · .json · Public domain