Hillie v. Supreme Court Federal et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION re 5 Order Dismissing Case. Signed by District Judge Michael P. Mills on 4/11/18. (tab)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREGORY MARQUE HILLIE
SUPREME COURT FEDERAL, ET AL.
This matter comes before the court on the pro se petition of Gregory Marque Hillie for a writ
of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. For the reasons set forth below, the instant petition for a
writ of habeas corpus will be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
Habeas Corpus Relief Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241
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 Section14 of the Judiciary Act of 1789.
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
Id. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a federal court may issue the writ when any person is held in violation of
the federal Constitution or laws, permitting a federal court to order the discharge of that person –
when the requirements of § 2254 and § 2255 do not apply. Frank v. Mangum, 237 U.S. 309, 311, 35
S. Ct. 582, 588, 59 L. Ed. 969 (1915).
Other than the style of the case and some writing in the margins, Mr. Hillie’s petition is
substantially blank, with all the grounds for relief filled in with “n/a.” What writing is legible is
largely unintelligible. The court can discern only that Mr. Hillie is charged with first degree murder
and aggravated assault in Case No. 2016-008-CR2, presumably in Bolivar County, Mississippi, where
he is currently detained. In two places in the petition, Mr. Hillie refers to “fasty and speed trial” or
“fast and speedy trial,” but he has provided the court with no discernable allegations which might
state a claim for habeas corpus relief. He also seems to argue that he faces federal charges and would
like to be tried in federal court. None of these allegations state a claim that Mr. Hillie is being
detained in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States; as such, he has not stated a claim
for federal habeas corpus relief.
For the reasons set forth above, the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus will be
DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. A final judgment
consistent with this memorandum opinion will issue today.
SO ORDERED, this, the 11th day of April, 2018.
/s/ MICHAEL P. MILLS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?