Austin v. Georgetown University
- Charles Breyer
- 3:24-cv-00260
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Austin v. Georgetown University, Judge Ryu ordered Austin to explain why claims against Judge Gonzalez Rogers should not be dismissed under judicial immunity.
George Jarvis Austin must respond by April 3, 2024 about the claims against Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. The order does not state a disposition of the claims against Georgetown University.
What happened
In Austin v. Georgetown University, self-represented plaintiff George Jarvis Austin sued Georgetown University and later added District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers as a defendant. He alleges that Georgetown acted with Judge Gonzalez Rogers to violate rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, Title VI, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1985, and other constitutional protections.
The court said the amended complaint does not identify specific actions by Judge Gonzalez Rogers or clearly explain the basis for the claims against her. The court also explained that judges generally cannot be sued for damages based on their judicial acts and that claims seeking to challenge acts performed in a judicial capacity may be barred by judicial immunity.
Judge Ryu ordered Austin to explain in writing by April 3, 2024 why the claims against Judge Gonzalez Rogers should not be dismissed on that basis. The court stated that if Austin does not respond, it will recommend dismissing Judge Gonzalez Rogers from the case. The order did not itself dismiss her.
The detailed version
- Austin v. Georgetown University · No. 3:24-cv-00260
- Charles Breyer
- Mar. 20, 2024
Background
George Jarvis Austin, representing himself, filed a complaint against Georgetown University in January 2024. He filed an amended complaint on March 13, 2024, adding District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers as a defendant.
Austin alleges that Georgetown University acted “in concert with” Judge Gonzalez Rogers to violate his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, Title VI, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and 42 U.S.C. § 1985. He stated that he added Judge Gonzalez Rogers not to seek damages from her, but to seek injunctive and other relief concerning alleged ongoing interference with his constitutional rights. The court said the amended complaint does not allege specific actions by Judge Gonzalez Rogers and does not clearly explain the basis for the claims against her.
Judicial-immunity issue
The court explained that judges have absolute immunity from civil damages claims based on their judicial acts. It also cited authority stating that federal judges generally are protected from injunctive and other equitable relief for acts performed in their judicial capacity. The court stated that, to the extent Austin challenges acts Judge Gonzalez Rogers performed in that capacity, the claims are completely barred by judicial immunity.
Order
The court ordered Austin to explain in writing by April 3, 2024 why his claims against Judge Gonzalez Rogers should not be dismissed based on judicial immunity. If Austin does not respond by that date, the court will recommend that Judge Gonzalez Rogers be dismissed from the action. The order is an order to show cause; it does not itself dismiss Judge Gonzalez Rogers.
Effect
The order requires Austin to respond regarding the claims against Judge Gonzalez Rogers. The excerpt does not state any ruling disposing of Austin’s claims against Georgetown University.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.