Austin v. State of California, San Francisco Superior Court

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 GREGORY AUSTIN, Case No. 20-cv-00900-CRB

9 Plaintiff, ORDER RE IN FORMA PAUPERIS 10 v. STATUS

11 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO SUPERIOR COURT, et al., 12 Defendants. 13 14 On January 6, 2021, the Court dismissed Gregory Austin’s petition for a writ of 15 habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and noted that 16 Austin’s petition was untimely. See Order Dismissing Pet. with Prejudice (dkt. 34). 17 Austin filed a Notice of Appeal on February 1, 2021. See Notice of Appeal (dkt. 36). 18 On February 3, 2021, the Ninth Circuit referred Austin’s appeal to the Court “for the 19 limited purpose of determining whether in forma pauperis status should continue for this 20 appeal or whether the appeal is frivolous or taken in bad faith.” See Referral Notice, Ninth 21 Circuit Case No. 21-15191 (dkt. 2). As the referral notice explains, revocation of in forma 22 pauperis status is “appropriate” when the district court “finds the appeal to be frivolous.” 23 Id. (citing Hooker v. American Airlines 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002)). 24 The Court finds that Austin’s appeal is frivolous. To the extent that Austin’s 25 amended petition is comprehensible, it rests partly on the argument that he is “in custody” 26 because a domestic violence restraining order forbids him from being within 100 yards of 27 his ex-wife. See Amended Pet. (dkt. 31); Restraining Order (dkt. 31-1). Austin also 1 || Pet. at4. Austin’s additional arguments are equally without basis in law or reality. For 2 || example, he asserts that his restraining order constitutes “torture,” and that this torture is 3 || intended both to (1) “cover up” a “racketeering” scheme within California’s family court 4 || system, and (2) further “the overall goal of political Marxism through . . . domestic 5 || terrorism.” Id. at 14. Austin’s other arguments proceed along similar lines, culminating 6 || with a series of “pertinent philosophical quotes” including (without explanation) Nazi 7 || propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels’ suggestion to “[a]ccuse the other side of that which 8 || you are guilty.” Id. at 44. 9 The Court thus concludes that Austin’s appeal, like his petition, is entirely 10 || frivolous. See Hooker, 302 F.3d at 1092; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). The Court hereby 11 || revokes Austin’s in forma pauperis status for Austin’s appeal. Consistent with the Referral 2 Notice, the Clerk is directed to notify the Ninth Circuit Clerk of Court and the parties. See 5 13 || Referral Notice. IT IS SO ORDERED. co kK 3 15 Dated: February 4, 2021 CHARLES R. BREYER = 16 United States District Judge

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28