Schwindler v. Holt

Filing 14

ORDER granting 8 Motion to transfer case. The Clerk is DIRECTED to transfer this case to the Northern District of Georgia signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 1/25/17. (jlm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION
FRANK JOSEPH SCHWINDLER,
Petitioner,
v.

CV416-189

AHMED HOLT, Warden,
Respondent.

ORDER
After the Northern District of Georgia transferred Frank Joseph
Schwindler’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition to this Court (he was convicted of
child molestation and other crimes in this district), docs. 5 & 6,
Schwindler moved to transfer his case back to the Northern District,
where he still has 42 U.S.C. § 1983 litigation against the Georgia
Department of Corrections over its alleged interference with his habeas
litigation rights. 1 Doc. 8. Given that claim, the Court directed the State

See Schwindler v. Comm’r, Georgia Dept. of Corr. , 605 F. App’x 971, 972-73 (11th
Cir. 2015) (“Schwindler's access-to-the-courts claim is based on his allegation that the
various prisons in which he has been incarcerated have continuously denied him
access to his legal files, thereby frustrating his ability to seek post-conviction relief.
He also alleges that the Georgia Department of Corrections tortiously deprived
1
1

to respond. Schwindler v. Holt , 2016 WL 6824447 at * 1 (S.D. Ga. Nov.
18, 2016). It “does not oppose the motion to transfer this case to the
Northern District of Georgia so that the case may be assigned to the judge
who is presiding in [Schwinder’s] § 1983 case.” Doc. 13 at 4.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Schwinder’s unopposed motion to
transfer this case. Doc. 8. The Clerk is DIRECTED to transfer this
case to the Northern District of Georgia and send a copy of this Order to
the Honorable Timothy C. Batten, Sr. to facilitate specific assignment.

SO ORDERED , this 25th day of January, 2017.
-

.i-r-cUNITED STATES MAGIST1AE JUDGE
SOUTF1I[IN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

plaintiff of between 40 and 60 percent of plaintiff's legal files and materials without
due process. In other words, a number of his legal files have gone missing. . . . We
find that Schwindler has created a material issue of fact as to whether there is an
ongoing violation of his right to access the courts. We reverse the judgment of the
district court and remand for further proceedings.”); Schwindler v. Bryson ,
111CV1276-TCB, doc. 169 at 6 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 26, 2016) (denying Bryson’s motion to
dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; “the question is not simply whether
Schwindler has access to the existing files, but whether the [Georgia Department of
Correction’s] restrictions on his access impede his pursuit of habeas relief in a harmful
way.”).
2