United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Aberdeen Division
matter comes before the court on the pro se petition
of Regina Krickbaum for a writ of habeas corpus
under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The State has moved to dismiss
the petition for failure to state a claim upon which relief
could be granted. The petitioner has not responded, and the
deadline to do so has expired. The matter is ripe for
resolution. For the reasons set forth below, the State's
motion to dismiss will be granted, and the instant petition
for a writ of habeas corpus will be dismissed.
Corpus Relief Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
writ of habeas corpus, a challenge to the legal
authority under which a person may be detained, is ancient.
Duker, The English Origins of the Writ of Habeas Corpus: A
Peculiar Path to Fame, 53 N.Y.U.L.Rev. 983 (1978); Glass,
Historical Aspects of Habeas Corpus, 9 St. John's L.Rev.
55 (1934). It is "perhaps the most important writ known
to the constitutional law of England," Secretary of
State for Home Affairs v. O 'Brien, A.C. 603, 609
(1923), and it is equally significant in the United States.
Article I, § 9, of the Constitution ensures that the
right of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be
suspended, except when, in the case of rebellion or invasion,
public safety may require it. Habeas Corpus, 20 Fed.
Prac. & Proc. Deskbook § 56. Its use by the federal
courts was authorized in Section 14 of the Judiciary Act of
1789. Habeas corpus principles developed over time
in both English and American common law have since been
The statutory provisions on habeas corpus appear as
sections 2241 to 2255 of the 1948 Judicial Code. The
recodification of that year set out important procedural
limitations and additional procedural changes were added in
1966. The scope of the writ, insofar as the statutory
language is concerned, remained essentially the same,
however, until 1996, when Congress enacted the Antiterrorism
and Effective Death Penalty Act, placing severe restrictions
on the issuance of the writ for state prisoners and setting
out special, new habeas corpus procedures for
capital cases. The changes made by the 1996 legislation are
the end product of decades of debate about habeas
Id. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, a federal court may
issue the writ when a person is held in violation of the
federal Constitution or laws, permitting a federal court
to order the discharge of any person held by a state
in violation of the supreme law of the land. Frank v.
Mangum, 237 U.S. 309, 311, 35 S.Ct 582, 588, 59 L.Ed.
and Procedural Posture
Krickbaum is in the custody of the Mississippi Department of
Corrections ("MDOC") and is currently housed at
Central Mississippi Correctional Facility in Pearl,
Mississippi. On April 7, 2006, she pled guilty to armed
robbery in Clay County Circuit Court and was sentenced to
serve a term of eighteen (18) years in the custody of the
Mississippi Department of Corrections ("MDOC").
See Exhibit A (Sentencing Order in Clay County Circuit
Court Cause Number 8755). As such, Ms. Krickbaum's MDOC
Inmate Time Sheet reflects a discharge date of July 22, 2023.
See Exhibit B.
November 21, 2017, she filed the instant petition for a writ
of habeas corpus, raising the follows grounds for
relief, pro se:
Ground One: MDOC SOP 25-15-G/Conditional
Medical Release Violates U.S.C.A. 8th for cruel
Ground Two: MDOC SOP 25-15-G/Conditional
Medical Release Violates U.S.C.A. 8th for
Ground Three: MDOC SOP 25-15-G/Conditional
Medical Release Violates U.S.C.A. 8th against
Ground Four: MS ST § 47-7-3 for parole
eligibility violates U.S.C.A. 14th for equal
See ECF Doc. 1.
instant petition, Ms. Krickbaum does not challenge the merits
of her armed robbery conviction. Id. Instead, she
seeks "conditional early release" or an
"amended order for parole eligibility" based on her
medical condition. Id. at 15. In support of her
claims in Grounds One, Two, and Three, Ms. Krickbaum alleges
that the MDOC "tortures her with inadequate medical care
due to financial constraints," that "proper medical
care has been delayed and denied as punishment for
fees," and that she is facing a "disproportionate
punishment" because "when one's health