Austin v. Georgetown University
- Charles Breyer
- 3:24-cv-00260
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Austin v. Georgetown University, Judge Breyer denied Austin’s motion to reconsider sanctions declaring him a vexatious litigant.
George Jarvis Austin was directly affected because the court denied his motion to reconsider the sanctions order declaring him a vexatious litigant and closed the action to further filings. Georgetown University and Judge Gonzalez Rogers were discussed in connection with Austin’s allegations, but the opinion did not decide the underlying merits of those claims.
What happened
In Austin v. Georgetown University, the court had previously declared George Jarvis Austin a vexatious litigant. Austin asked the court to reconsider that sanctions order after voluntarily dismissing his claims.
Austin argued that Georgetown University had violated his privacy and discriminated against him, and that his newer claims were different from claims in earlier lawsuits. The court said he had not fixed the personal-jurisdiction problem identified in an earlier related proceeding and had largely repeated his previous allegations.
Judge Charles R. Breyer denied Austin’s motion to reconsider. The court said Austin showed neither new evidence nor a change in controlling law, and it was not persuaded that the earlier order was clearly wrong or unjust. The action is closed to further filings, and the court said it would enter a separate judgment so Austin could appeal if he wished.
The detailed version
- Austin v. Georgetown University · No. 3:24-cv-00260
- Charles Breyer
- Nov. 13, 2024
Background
The court had issued an earlier sanctions order declaring George Jarvis Austin a vexatious litigant. Austin filed a motion asking the court to reconsider that order. The opinion states that Austin had voluntarily dismissed his claims in this action, but the court accepted the dismissal while retaining jurisdiction to decide sanctions.
Austin’s arguments
Austin’s motion repeated his allegations that Georgetown University violated his privacy by using his photograph without permission and later discriminated against him because of his race. He also argued that the claims in this action were not repetitive of claims in his first and second suits, but instead involved new legal harms.
The court acknowledged that Austin’s operative complaint included allegations that Georgetown University and Judge Gonzalez Rogers conspired to deny him access to the courts because of his race. But the court found that Austin did not provide factual allegations supporting racial bias in the handling of his earlier lawsuits. It concluded that these allegations were based at their core on the same claims Austin had raised in the earlier related proceeding. The court said any purported new claims would be subject to dismissal as conclusory, leaving Austin’s earlier allegations.
Reconsideration standard and ruling
The court explained that reconsideration—reexamining an earlier order—is generally appropriate only when there is new evidence, the earlier decision was clearly wrong or unjust, or controlling law has changed. Austin did not identify new evidence or a change in controlling law, so the court treated his motion as arguing that the sanctions order was clearly wrong or unjust.
The court rejected that argument and denied Austin’s motion to reconsider. It characterized Austin’s presentation of his failed claims as new due-process and equal-protection claims involving Judge Gonzalez Rogers as an attempt to relitigate those claims before a different judge, and stated that the conduct was sanctionable. The court also stated that, after imposing sanctions, the action was closed to further filings. It said it would enter a separate judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58 so Austin could appeal if he wished.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.