Krickbaum v. Mississippi, 1:18CV19-GHD-RP
| Decision Date | 08 February 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. 1:18CV19-GHD-RP,1:18CV19-GHD-RP |
| Parties | REGINA KRICKBAUM PETITIONER v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, ET AL. RESPONDENTS |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Mississippi |
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.
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).
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 A1 (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:
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 one's life," her "prison sentence now makes the judgment literally 'life.'" See ECF Doc. 1.
She originally filed her petition in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. However, on February 5, 2018, the Southern District transferred the case to this court as "the more convenient forum for resolving this Habeas Corpus Petition," as Ms. Krickbaum's conviction was from the Circuit Court of Clay County, Mississippi (located in the Northern District of Mississippi.) ECF Doc. 8 at 2-3 (citing Bell v. Watkins, 692 F.2d 999, 1013 (5th Cir. 1983)).
In addition, the Southern District found that, to the extent Ms. Krickbaum is seeking speedier release from incarceration, she must pursue such relief through a petition for writ of habeas corpus. ECF Doc. 8 at 1 (citing Orellana v. Kyle, 65 F.3d 29, 31 (5th Cir. 1995)). The Southern District also found that, to the extent Ms. Krickbaum wishes to challenge the conditions of her confinement, shemust pursue those claims in an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Id. Therefore, the Southern District dismissed "without prejudice, any conditions of confinement claims Petitioner may be asserting in her habeas Petition." Id. at 1-2 (). The Southern District further held that, "to the extent Petitioner is asserting conditions of confinement claims, these claims are dismissed without prejudice." ECF Doc. 1 at 3.
The Southern District's order did not delineate which grounds were dismissed from the petition as "conditions of confinement claims." See ECF Doc. 8. The court construes Ms. Krickbaum's claims in Grounds One and Two, that the MDOC "tortures her with inadequate medical care due to financial constraints," and that "proper medical care has been delayed and denied as punishment for fees," as challenges to the conditions of her confinement. Thus, these claims have previously been dismissed and are not properly before the court on federal habeas corpus review. See ECF Doc. 8 at 1-2 (citing Lineberry, 380 F. App'x at 453). The court will, however, address Ms. Krickbaum's request for "conditional early release," as well as her claims in Grounds Three and Four.
In her petition, Ms. Krickbaum does not challenge the merits of her armed robbery conviction. Instead, she seeks "conditional early release" or an "amended order for parole eligibility" based on her medical condition. She claims in her petition that she has previously sought her requested relief through the MDOC Administrative Remedy Program ("ARP"), but that she "did not qualify as a terminally ill patient," so her ARP was denied, and she was referred to the courts. ECF Doc. 1 at 5. Ms. Krickbaum also claims that she has filed other post-conviction actions in the Clay County CircuitCourt seeking relief. The court sets has summarized the underlying proceedings below.
On November 2, 2016, Ms. Krickbaum filed a "Motion for Sentence Reconsideration," which was docketed in Clay County Circuit Court Cause Number 2016-0221. See Exhibit C. In her motion, she stated that she had served over eleven years of her mandatory eighteen-year sentence and requested that she be "granted time served" for her sentence, based upon her involvement in various programs and resulting rehabilitation. Id. On January 17, 2017, the Clay County Circuit Court construed Ms. Krickbaum's motion as a "Petition for Conditional Release," declined to amend any aspect of the sentence, and dismissed the post-conviction action. See Exhibit D.
On June 20, 2017, Ms. Krickbaum submitted a grievance through the MDOC ARP, seeking an early conditional release based on her health issues. See Exhibit E. The grievance records attached to the State's motion to dismiss show that Ms. Krickbaum received a First Step Response, on July 17, 2017, advising her that she did not have a parole or earned release supervision date on her armed robbery sentence. Id. According to the attached documents, Ms. Krickbaum failed to proceed to the Second Step of the ARP; therefore, this ARP grievance was closed at the First Step. Id.
On August 14, 2017, Ms. Krickbaum filed another "Petition for Post-Conviction Relief," seeking an early conditional release under "[MDOC] Policy Number 25-15-G, Conditional Medical Release, and Miss. Code Ann. § 47-7-3 Parole Eligibility," which was docketed in Clay County Circuit Court Cause Number 2017-0151. See Exhibit F. On October 9, 2017, the Clay County Circuit Court dismissed Ms. Krickbaum's post-conviction motion, finding that the court was without power to grant her request for a conditional medical release because "there is no legal authority for it." See Exhibit G. On November 21, 2017, the same day on which Ms. Krickbaum filed the instant federal habeas corpus petition, she filed a "Motion to Appeal Order to Dismiss PCR." See Exhibit H. OnFebruary 6, 2018, the Clay County Circuit Court entered an "Order Allowing Defendant to Appeal In Forma Pauperis." See Exhibit I. A review of the Mississippi Supreme Court's docket, as available on the court's website, reflects that Ms. Krickbaum did not file a notice of appeal.2
To maintain a petition for habeas corpus, an inmate must be deprived of some right secured to her...
To continue reading
Request your trial