United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Western Division
DAN V. SHARP PETITIONER
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA RESPONDENT
SHARION AYCOCK, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter comes before the court on the pro se petition
of Dan V. Sharp for a writ of habeas corpus under 28
U.S.C. § 2241. Having reviewed the petition, the court
finds that it is without merit and will be dismissed with
Corpus Relief Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241
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 Section14 of the Judiciary Act of
1789. Habeas corpus principles developed
over time in both English and American common law have since
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.
under § 2241 is available to a prisoner in five
(1) He is in custody under or by color of the authority of
the United States or is committed for trial before some court
(2) He is in custody for an act done or omitted in pursuance
of an Act of Congress, or an order, process, judgment or
decree of a court or judge of the United States; or
(3) He is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws
or treaties of the United States; or
(4) He, being a citizen of a foreign state and domiciled
therein is in custody for an act done or omitted under any
alleged right, title, authority, privilege, protection, or
exemption claimed under the commission, order or sanction of
any foreign state, or under color thereof, the validity and
effect of which depend upon the law of nations; or
(5) It is necessary to bring him into court to testify or for
28 U.S.C. § 2241(c).
28 U.S.C. § 2241, a federal court may issue the writ
when the petitioner is in state custody pursuant to something
other than a state judgment (such as pretrial detention,
pretrial bond order, etc.), 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). Section 2241 also provides a remedy for federal
prisoners in two instances, “(1) to challenge the
execution of a ...