State of Georgia v. Eric Heinze, et al.

State of Georgia v. Heinze · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · April 7, 2026 · No. No. 23-12050

Summary

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit dismissed the State of Georgia’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The appeal challenged the denial of a motion for a limited remand to state court so Georgia could seek a superseding indictment; the court held that neither the collateral order doctrine nor 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) provided appellate jurisdiction.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Writing for the Court
Lagoa, Circuit Judge; Branch, Circuit Judge; Luck, Circuit Judge
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Decision date
April 7, 2026
Docket number
No. 23-12050
Procedural posture
The State of Georgia appealed the district court's denial of its motion for a limited remand to state court so that it could seek a superseding indictment. The Eleventh Circuit considered whether it had appellate jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine or 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
Standard of review
Jurisdictional issues are reviewed de novo; the court must examine its jurisdiction sua sponte.
Precedential value
Published Eleventh Circuit opinion; precedential
Parties
State of Georgia v. Eric Heinze, Kristopher Hutchens
Disposition
dismissed

Topics

appellate jurisdictioninterlocutory appealfinal judgment rulestatutory interpretationcriminal procedure

Practice areas

appellate procedurecriminal procedurefederal jurisdictionstatutory interpretation

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the Eleventh Circuit had jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine to review the denial of the State's motion for a limited remand.
  2. Whether the denial of the limited-remand motion had the practical effect of granting or denying an injunction and was therefore appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
  3. Whether 28 U.S.C. § 1455(b)(5)'s requirement that the state prosecution proceed no further prevents a state court from conducting a separate grand-jury proceeding for a superseding indictment.

Holdings

  1. The denial of the State's motion for a limited remand was not appealable under the collateral order doctrine because it did not conclusively determine whether the State could file a superseding indictment.
  2. The denial of the limited-remand motion was not appealable under § 1292(a)(1) because it did not grant, deny, or have the practical effect of an injunction.
  3. Section 1455(b)(5) requires only that the removed prosecution proceed no further in state court; it does not eliminate the state court's ability to conduct a separate grand-jury proceeding to issue a superseding indictment.

Key quotations

After careful review and with the benefit of oral argument, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. (at 2)
The final judgment rule prohibits appellate review of a pretrial order in a criminal case until conviction and imposition of sentence (at 5)
Thus, we conclude that the district court’s order denying the State’s motion for a “limited remand” did not “conclusively determine[] the disputed question.” (at 9)
Because the district court did not practically enjoin the State from seeking a superseding indictment in state court, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal as well under § 1292(a)(1). (at 11)

Factual background

In 2016, officers Eric Heinze and Kristopher Hutchens were members of the U.S. Marshals Service Southeast Regional Fugitive Task Force, which conducted a raid to apprehend Jamarion Robinson at his girlfriend's apartment. Robinson died during the raid. In 2021, a Fulton County grand jury indicted Heinze and Hutchens on state charges including felony murder, aggravated assault, burglary, making a false statement, and violation of oath by a public officer.

Procedural history

Heinze and Hutchens were indicted in Georgia state court and removed the prosecutions to the Northern District of Georgia under the federal-officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442. After the district court denied the State's initial motion to remand, the State sought a limited remand to obtain a superseding indictment. The district court denied that motion, both because it lacked authority to order a limited remand and because a remand would not be appropriate in any event. The Eleventh Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…