Michael Ducksworth v. State of Mississippi
2015 Miss. App. LEXIS 427
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- In 1989 Ducksworth and codefendant Ozia Booth pled guilty to two counts of murder and one count of burglary. Booth was paroled in 2009; Ducksworth was not.
- In Jan. 2013 Ducksworth filed in Forrest County a "Petition for Order to Show Cause or In the Alternative, Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus" challenging the Parole Board’s denial of parole as arbitrary and unconstitutional (due process and equal protection).
- The Forrest County circuit court treated the filing as a post-conviction relief (PCR) motion and dismissed it. The court below believed the petition was not filed in the original trial court as required by the UPCCRA.
- The Mississippi Court of Appeals holds the trial court erred in treating the petition as PCR (per prior authority treating parole-board suits as civil), but affirms dismissal because Ducksworth failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted.
- The court reasons: no constitutionally protected liberty interest in parole in Mississippi, so denial of parole does not support a due-process claim; Ducksworth did not allege a constitutionally forbidden basis (e.g., race) to state an equal-protection claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nature/venue: Is the filing a PCR motion or an ordinary civil/habeas action? | Ducksworth styled it as a petition/writ and sought habeas relief in Forrest County. | State/trial court treated it as a PCR motion subject to UPCCRA filing rules. | Court: Trial court erred to treat it as PCR for the reason stated, but dismissal stands on other grounds. |
| Due process: Does denial of parole violate due process? | Ducksworth: Parole denial was arbitrary compared to Booth; violated due process. | State: No liberty interest in parole; parole decisions are discretionary. | Held: No due-process claim — prisoners have no constitutional liberty interest in parole in Mississippi. |
| Equal protection: Did parole denial violate equal protection? | Ducksworth: Denial while Booth was paroled shows arbitrary disparate treatment. | State: No allegation that denial was based on a constitutionally prohibited classification. | Held: Insufficient — absent allegations like race or other protected class, no cognizable equal-protection claim. |
| Procedural bars / successive petitions | Ducksworth implied relief via habeas/PCR; sought alternative pleadings. | State invoked UPCCRA rules and prior PCR proceedings as bars. | Held (majority): dismissed for failure to state a claim; concurring opinion also notes successive/time-bar issues and jurisdictional nuances supporting dismissal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vice v. State, 679 So.2d 205 (Miss. 1996) (no liberty interest in parole)
- Cotton v. Miss. Parole Bd., 863 So.2d 917 (Miss. 2003) (parole decision is discretionary)
- Irving v. Thigpen, 732 F.2d 1215 (5th Cir. 1984) (parole is legislative grace; no federal due-process claim for denial)
- Mangum v. Mississippi Parole Board, 76 So.3d 762 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (parole-board suits treated as civil actions)
- Young v. State, 731 So.2d 1120 (Miss. 1999) (standard for PCR procedural-alive/substantial-showing)
- Ducksworth v. State, 103 So.3d 762 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) (prior Barnett decision on earlier PCR filing and mootness)