Twyford v. Bradshaw

Filing 114

ORDER finding as moot 111 Motion to Stay; granting 112 Motion to Stay the Courts March 19, 2020 Order, (ECF No. 112), pending resolution of Respondents appeal. Signed by Chief Judge Algenon L. Marbley on 5/4/2020. (cw)

Case: 2:03-cv-00906-ALM-EPD Doc #: 114 Filed: 05/04/20 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 7123

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
RAYMOND A. TWYFORD, III,
Petitioner,
Case No. 2:03cv906
Chief Judge Algenon L. Marbley
Chief Magistrate Judge Deavers

v.
WARDEN, CHILLICOTHE
CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Respondent.

ORDER
Petitioner, a prisoner sentenced to death by the State of Ohio, has pending before this
Court a habeas corpus action pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter is before the Court upon
Respondent-Warden’s Corrected Motion to Stay the Court’s March 19, 2020 Order. (ECF No.
112.)
On March 19, 2020, this Court granted Petitioner’s motion for an Order directing his
custodian, the Warden-Respondent, to transport Petitioner to The Ohio State University Medical
Center for neurological imaging, to include a PET-CT scan. (Opinion and Order, ECF No. 109.)
On March 25, 2020, Respondent filed a Notice of Appeal of the Court’s Order, to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. (ECF No. 110.) Respondent now seeks a stay of
the Court’s Order to Transport pending resolution of that appeal. Petitioner has not filed a
response.
In requesting a stay of the Court’s Order, Respondent argues that in the absence of a stay,
“the Warden will be deprived of a remedy, as transporting Petitioner Twyford will render moot
the Warden’s appeal.” (ECF No. 112, at PageID 7118). Additionally, Respondent argues a stay

Case: 2:03-cv-00906-ALM-EPD Doc #: 114 Filed: 05/04/20 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 7124

will not harm others, Petitioner will not suffer prejudice, and “the public interest is served
generally by clarifying the authority of the district court to order the transportation of condemned
prisoners beyond the secure confines of the institution.” (Id.)
“The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance – it confers
jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects
of the case involved in the appeal.” Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56,
58 (1982). Thus, while this Court retains jurisdiction over matters not implicated by the appeal,
the Order to Transport has effectively been stayed by the filing of Respondent’s timely notice of
appeal. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Respondent’s motion to stay the Court’s March 19,
2020 Order, (ECF No. 112), pending resolution of Respondent’s appeal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
__________________________________
ALGENON L. MARBLEY
Chief United States District Judge

2