
    Argued and submitted December 18, 1981,
    appeal dismissed April 5, 1982
    In the Matter of the Application of Sherman Theo Pitt, for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, PITT, Appellant, v. SUNDERLAND, Respondent.
    
    (No. 16-81-06435, CA A22089)
    642 P2d 703
    Thomas L. Fagan, Eugene, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.
    William F. Nessly, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General and William F. Gary, Solicitor General, Salem.
    Before Buttler, Presiding Judge, and Warden and Warren, Judges.
    PER CURIAM
   PER CURIAM

Plaintiff appeals from an order in a habeas corpus proceeding sustaining a demurrer to his replication to the return to the writ. The order appealed from provides: “It is ordered that the demurrer be sustained, with plaintiff being allowed to plead further.” An order sustaining a demurrer is not appealable. J. Gregcin, Inc. v. City of Dayton, 287 Or 709, 601 P2d 1254 (1979). No order dismissing plaintiffs petition has been entered. See Scott v. Cupp, 55 Or App 23, 637 P2d 173 (1981).

Appeal dismissed. 
      
       Proceeding by habeas corpus is a civil proceeding. Holland v. Gladden, 229 Or 573, 368 P2d 331 (1962). Demurrers shall not be used. ORCP 13C.
     