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 Austin v. State of California, Judge Breyer revoked Gregory Austin’s fee-waiver status for his appeal after finding the appeal frivolous.
Gregory Austin’s appeal, because the court revoked his in forma pauperis status; the Ninth Circuit clerk and the parties were directed to receive notice.
What happened
In Austin v. State of California, the court considered whether Gregory Austin could keep his status allowing him to pursue an appeal without prepaying court costs. The appeal followed the court’s earlier dismissal of Austin’s petition challenging his custody under federal law for lack of authority to hear it; that earlier order also said the petition was too late.
The Ninth Circuit sent the issue back to the district court for the limited purpose of deciding whether Austin’s fee-waiver status should continue or whether his appeal was frivolous or brought in bad faith. Austin argued, among other things, that a restraining order keeping him away from his ex-wife placed him “in custody.”
Judge Charles R. Breyer ruled that Austin’s appeal was entirely frivolous and revoked his fee-waiver status for the appeal. The clerk was directed to notify the Ninth Circuit clerk and the parties.
The detailed version
- Austin v. State of California, San Francisco Superior Court · No. 3:20-cv-00900
- Charles Breyer
- Feb. 4, 2021
Background
On January 6, 2021, the court dismissed Gregory Austin’s petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court concluded it lacked legal authority to decide the petition. The court also noted that the petition was untimely. Austin then filed a notice of appeal on February 1, 2021.
On February 3, 2021, the Ninth Circuit referred the appeal to the district court for the limited purpose of deciding whether Austin’s in forma pauperis status should continue. In forma pauperis status allows a person to pursue a case or appeal without prepaying court costs. The referral also asked the district court to determine whether the appeal was frivolous or taken in bad faith.
Court’s Analysis
The court found Austin’s appeal frivolous. The court said that, to the extent it could understand Austin’s amended petition, it relied partly on the argument that he was “in custody” because a domestic-violence restraining order prohibited him from coming within 100 yards of his ex-wife.
The court also addressed Austin’s other arguments, including his assertions that the restraining order constituted “torture,” that it concealed a racketeering scheme in California’s family-court system, and that it advanced political Marxism through domestic terrorism. The court described these arguments as lacking a basis in law or reality and said the appeal, like the petition, was entirely frivolous.
Ruling
The court revoked Austin’s in forma pauperis status for his appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). It directed the clerk to notify the Ninth Circuit clerk and the parties. Judge Charles R. Breyer signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.