SCHMIDT v. TUCKER

Filing 97

ORDER denying 87 , 91 Motions and overruling 92 , 92 Objections filed by Petitioner. Signed by SENIOR JUDGE MAURICE M PAUL on 3/4/2013. (jws)

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PANAMA CITY DIVISION
DAN SCHMIDT,
Petitioner,
v.

CASE NO. 5:12-cv-00226-MP-EMT

KENNETH S TUCKER, et al.,
Respondents.
_____________________________/
ORDER
Previously, the Court directed the Magistrate Judge to revisit the issues raised in
petitioner's Second Motion to Supplement Record and Second Motion to Consolidate Cases
(Doc. 56, 69) to provide a fuller factual and legal basis for the Court to review. The Magistrate
Judge has done so in a thorough order at Doc. 80, to which Mr. Schmidt objected, Doc. 92. With
regard to the motion to consolidate cases, the Court has separately dismissed Mr. Schmidt's case
in 5:12-cv-00305 for abuse of the judicial process. Thus, the motion at Doc. 69 is moot and was
properly denied. Second, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that respondents may await
a ruling on the motions concerning exhaustion of remedies in the instant case before filing
answers and submitting those portions of the state court record required by Rule 5. Thus, Doc.
56 was properly denied in part as premature.
Additionally, Mr. Schmidt objected, Doc. 90, to the Magistrate Judge's order denying
him release on bail pending the outcome of the case. Doc. 85. As stated in Docs. 20 and 22, Mr.
Schmidt's claims are not likely to succeed on the merits, and bail is not appropriate in his case.
Finally, at Doc. 86, the Court overruled Mr. Schmidt's objection at Doc. 83 to the order

Page 2 of 2

of the Magistrate Judge, Doc. 75, on Mr. Schmidt's frivolous motion to disqualify counsel. Doc.
68. Mr. Schmidt moved to postpone that ruling, Doc. 87, or to amend it, Doc. 91. Neither
document, including the addendum at Doc. 89, provides any meritorious argument to revisit the
previous orders.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1. The motions at Doc. 87 and 91 are denied.
2. The objections at Doc. 90 and 92 are overruled.
DONE AND ORDERED this 4th day of March, 2013

s/Maurice M. Paul
Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case No: 5:12-cv-00226-MP-EMT