Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Krickbaum v. State

United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Aberdeen Division

February 8, 2019

REGINA KRICKBAUM PETITIONER
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, ET AL. RESPONDENTS

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

         This 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.

         Habeas Corpus Relief Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

         The 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 codified:

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 corpus.

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. 969 (1915).

         Facts and Procedural Posture

          Regina 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[1] (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.

         On 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 punishment.
Ground Two: MDOC SOP 25-15-G/Conditional Medical Release Violates U.S.C.A. 8th for excessive fines.
Ground Three: MDOC SOP 25-15-G/Conditional Medical Release Violates U.S.C.A. 8th against disproportionate punishment.
Ground Four: MS ST § 47-7-3 for parole eligibility violates U.S.C.A. 14th for equal protection.

See ECF Doc. 1.

         In the 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 jeopardizes ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.