Austin v. State of California, San Francisco Superior Court
- Charles Breyer
- 3:20-cv-00900
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Gregory Austin v. State of California, Judge Breyer dismissed Austin’s protective-order habeas petition with prejudice for lack of federal jurisdiction.
Gregory Austin’s federal petition challenging the domestic-violence protective order was dismissed with prejudice. The opinion also rejected the jurisdictional basis for his attempted California-law claims and his claim under 18 U.S.C. § 2340A.
What happened
Gregory Austin v. State of California, San Francisco Superior Court, et al. involved Austin’s challenge to a domestic-violence protective order. The order restricted his contact with, and presence near, his former spouse and son.
The court had previously dismissed Austin’s petition because it did not show that the protective order sufficiently restricted his physical liberty to place him in custody, as required for a federal habeas case. After Austin submitted additional information, the court concluded that nothing changed its jurisdictional analysis. The court also said that any state-law claims lacked federal jurisdiction and that the federal torture statute he cited did not create a private right to sue.
Judge Charles R. Breyer dismissed the petition with prejudice after Austin had been given an opportunity to amend it.
The detailed version
- Austin v. State of California, San Francisco Superior Court · No. 3:20-cv-00900
- Charles Breyer
- Jan. 6, 2021
Background
Gregory Austin sought relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the federal statute allowing a state prisoner or other person in state custody to challenge that custody in federal court. He challenged a domestic-violence protective order that restricted certain activities, including communicating with or coming within 100 yards of his former spouse and son.
Court’s analysis
Under Rule 4 governing § 2254 petitions, a federal district court must dismiss a petition when it plainly appears that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. The court explained that it has jurisdiction over a § 2254 petition only when the petitioner is “in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court.”
The court had previously dismissed Austin’s petition with leave to amend because the petition did not allege that the protective order constrained his physical liberty enough to satisfy the custody requirement. The earlier order had also identified the petition as untimely. Austin later submitted a filing containing additional facts and arguments about jurisdiction. The court concluded that the new filing did not affect its jurisdictional conclusions and incorporated its reasoning from the earlier order.
The court also addressed additional claims Austin attempted to include. It concluded that his claims for false imprisonment or other California torts, and his claims under the California Family Code, were state-law claims over which the court lacked jurisdiction. It further concluded that 18 U.S.C. § 2340A defines a criminal offense and does not provide a private right of action for a person to sue.
Disposition
Judge Charles R. Breyer dismissed Austin’s petition with prejudice because Austin had been given an opportunity to amend and still had not established federal jurisdiction or asserted a valid private cause of action within the court’s jurisdiction.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.