(HC) Austin v. Unknown

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
STEVEN OSCAR AUSTIN,
Petitioner,
v.
UNKNOWN,
Respondent.
No. 2:25-cv-2054 DAD CSK P
FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS
I. INTRODUCTION
Petitioner is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a petition for writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the Court is petitioner’s motion for a
temporary restraining order. (ECF No. 17.) For the following reasons, this Court recommends
that petitioner’s motion for a temporary restraining order be denied.
II. LEGAL STANDARD FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
Injunctive relief is “an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear
showing that the [petitioner] is entitled to such relief.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc.,
555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008) (citation omitted). The standard governing the issuing of a temporary
restraining order is “substantially identical” to the standard for issuing a preliminary injunction.
See Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001). To
obtain either form of injunctive relief, the moving party must show: (1) a likelihood of success on

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
the merits; (2) a likelihood of irreparable harm to the moving party in the absence of preliminary
relief; (3) that the balance of equities tips in favor of the moving party; and (4) that an injunction
is in the public interest. See Winter, 555 U.S. at 20 (2008). A plaintiff seeking a preliminary
injunction bears the burden of proving these elements. See Klein v. City of San Clemente, 584
F.3d 1196, 1201 (9th Cir. 2009).
III. DISCUSSION
The petition appears to raise the following claims: (1) conviction obtained in violation of
the Fourth Amendment; (2) ineffective assistance of counsel; (3) violation of Brady v. Maryland,
373 U.S. 83 (1963), Fourteenth Amendment right to due process and equal protection; and
(4) violation of Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, the Takings Clause, double
jeopardy and Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). (ECF No. 16 at 4-5.) This Court
separately issued an order finding that none of petitioner’s claims are exhausted. (See ECF No.
18.) In this order, the Court granted petitioner thirty days to file a motion to stay this action while
petitioner exhausts his claims pursuant to Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005).
In the pending motion for a temporary restraining order, filed largely on a civil rights
complaint form, petitioner raises six claims. In claim one, petitioner alleges violation of the
Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment. (ECF No. 17 at 2.)
Petitioner alleges that he was falsely imprisoned under a name that is not his name and that he has
been transferred from prison to prison against his will so that he is “hidden” in the system. (Id.)
Petitioner claims that he is falsely imprisoned and has suffered multiple injuries from targeted
assaults based on false rumors. (Id.) In claim two, petitioner alleges violation of the Eighth
Amendment, First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment. (Id. at 18.) Petitioner claims that
false information regarding petitioner has been disseminated, including false information that
petitioner is transgender, has sex crimes convictions, is gay and is a federal informant. (Id.) In
claim three, petitioner alleges violation of the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Fifth
Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment. (Id. at 4.) Petitioner claims that his property was
transferred without his knowledge and/or approval. (Id.) Petitioner claims that he is being held
against his will while he attempts to obtain his property, which contains proof of his claims. (Id.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
In claim four, petitioner alleges violation of the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Eighth
Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment. (Id. at 5.) Petitioner claims that he was arrested
without a warrant and without probable cause. (Id.) Petitioner appears to claim that based on his
false arrest, “higher ups” maliciously prosecuted petitioner, slandered petitioner and declared
petitioner mentally ill in order to discredit petitioner and cover up this illegality. (Id.) Petitioner
claims that his identifying documents have been taken from him. (Id.) Petitioner claims that he
has been illegally drugged in order to be transported against his will. (Id.) Petitioner claims that
he has been prescribed medications he does not need. (Id.) Petitioner claims that he has been
denied proper medical treatment. (Id.) In claim five, petitioner alleges violation of the Fourth
Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment and Thirteenth Amendment. (Id. at 6.)
Petitioner claims that he was arrested without probable cause and that he is factually innocent.
(Id.) Petitioner claims that he was maliciously prosecuted. (Id.) In claim six, petitioner alleges
violation of the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth
Amendment. (Id. at 7.) Petitioner claims that he has been denied access to the court and his mail
has been tampered with. (Id.) Petitioner claims that his legal property was “provided to others”
and that his address was fraudulently concealed to prevent adequate mail delivery. (Id.)
In his request for relief, petitioner requests the return of all property, an award of costs,
mandatory restitution, an order for his release, an order to cease all transfers, an emergency
hearing to provide proof and an order for discovery. (Id. at 8.)
To the extent petitioner seeks injunctive relief regarding the merits of the claims raised in
the habeas corpus petition, petitioner fails to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of
these claims because petitioner’s claims are not exhausted. (See ECF No. 18.) For this reason,
petitioner’s motion for a temporary restraining order should be denied. It also appears that many
of the claims raised in the pending motion are improperly raised in this habeas corpus petition as
they concern conditions of confinement. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 499 (1973) (a
civil rights action is the “proper remedy” for a petitioner asserting “a constitutional challenge to
the conditions of his prison life, but not to the fact or length of his custody.”). For example,
petitioner’s claims alleging inadequate medical care and that he was placed in danger as a result

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
of being falsely labeled transgender, gay, convicted of sex crimes and a federal informant concern
conditions of confinement and should be raised in a civil rights action. Finally, petitioner may
file a motion in the instant action raising claims alleging denial of access to legal property, denial
of access to the courts and mail tampering if petitioner demonstrates that these conditions impact
his ability to litigate the instant action. The pending motion fails to demonstrate petitioner’s
inability to litigate the instant action based on the alleged denial of access to legal property, denial
of access to the courts or mail tampering. Accordingly, petitioner’s motion for a temporary
restraining order on these grounds should be denied.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s motion for a temporary
restraining order (ECF No. 17) be denied.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written
objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that
failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District
Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
Dated: December 5, 2025
Aust2054.156/2