Schwindler v. Holt

Filing 57

ORDER staying all deadlines in this case until the Plaintiff's Appeal is concluded. Signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher L. Ray on 4/30/19. (jrb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION
FRANK JOSEPH SCHWINDLER,
Petitioner,
v.
P.O. AHMED HOLT, Warden,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CV416-189

ORDER
Frank Joseph Schwindler has petitioned this Court for relief from
his state-court judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

See doc. 1.

After a somewhat convoluted procedural history, the case returned to this
Court from the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia. Doc. 45. Given the pendency of state habeas proceedings, this
Court held the petition in abeyance.

See doc. 49 (Report and

Recommendation), adopted doc. 50. After the case was stayed, petitioner
filed motions to argue the propriety of the Northern District’s transfer.
See doc. 51. His motion was denied by the District Judge. Doc. 54. He
has filed a notice of his appeal of that order to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Doc. 56.
1

When he filed his notice of appeal, Schwindler also filed a motion
requesting an extension to a deadline imposed when the Court held his
petition in abeyance.

Doc. 55.

The Court directed him to file an

amended petition within thirty days of the conclusion of his state
proceeding.

See doc. 54 at 4.

His present motion indicates that the

Georgia Supreme Court denied him a certificate of probable cause to
appeal the denial of his habeas petition. See doc. 55 at 2. Given the
pendency of his appeal to the Eleventh Circuit, he requests either that this
case be held “in abeyance until such time as the appellate court considers
his appeal,” or a thirty-day extension.1
Normally the filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional
significance; it divests the district court of jurisdiction over a case and
vests jurisdiction in the court of appeals. Griggs v. Provident Consumer
Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982). That transfer, however, may avoid
aspects of the case not involved in the appeal.

See id.

Given

Schwindler’s express goal of having his petition considered in the

It is not clear when the Georgia Supreme Court denied him a certificate of probable
cause, terminating his state proceeding and starting the time for him to file an
amended petition. Thus, it is not clear when he proposes to submit his amended
petition.
2
1

Northern District, the Court will STAY all deadlines in this case until his
appeal is concluded.

If the Court of Appeals determines that

Schwindler’s petition is properly before this Court, he must file his
amended petition within thirty days of the disposition of his appeal.
SO ORDERED, this 30th day of April, 2019.
o p , 0 9.
_______________________________
________________________
_
_
_
_
CHRISTOPHER L. RAY
HRISTOPHER
P
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

3