Austin v. Georgetown University
- Charles Breyer
- 3:24-cv-00260
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Austin v. Georgetown University, Judge Davila denied Austin’s motion to withdraw consent to magistrate jurisdiction, leaving the case with Judge Ryu.
George J. Austin and the University; the ruling kept the matter before Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu and affected which judge would handle the unresolved sanctions motion.
What happened
George Jarvis Austin, representing himself, sued Georgetown University and others over alleged racial discrimination, negligence, and breach of contract. He had consented to have a magistrate judge handle all proceedings, including trial and final judgment.
Austin later sought to withdraw that consent, arguing that he intended it only for settlement discussions. The court found that the timing and record did not support that explanation and that the consent form clearly covered all further proceedings.
Judge Edward J. Davila denied Austin’s motion because Austin did not show the required good cause or extraordinary circumstances. Judge Davila also ruled that Austin’s voluntary dismissal did not make the motion moot because a sanctions motion remained unresolved, and returned the case to Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu for further proceedings.
The detailed version
- Austin v. Georgetown University · No. 3:24-cv-00260
- Charles Breyer
- Apr. 9, 2024
Background
George J. Austin, appearing without a lawyer, brought claims against Georgetown University and District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers alleging racial discrimination in violation of the Constitution, negligence, and breach of contract. The case was before Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu after Austin and the University consented to magistrate-judge jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
Austin’s consent form stated that he voluntarily consented to have a magistrate judge conduct “all further proceedings,” including trial and entry of final judgment, with an appeal going directly to the Ninth Circuit. After Judge Ryu issued an order requiring Austin to explain why his claims against Judge Gonzalez Rogers should not be dismissed based on absolute judicial immunity, Austin filed documents declining magistrate jurisdiction and then filed the motion to withdraw his consent.
Austin later voluntarily dismissed the case, but he did not withdraw the motion. The University also had filed a motion for sanctions seeking a pre-filing order and a finding that Austin was a vexatious litigant. Judge Ryu had separately required Austin to state whether his dismissal was with or without prejudice; the opinion does not state the final status of that issue.
Legal standard
The court explained that a civil case referred to a magistrate judge under Section 636(c) may be withdrawn only for “good cause” or under “extraordinary circumstances” shown by a party. Mere dissatisfaction with a magistrate judge’s decisions or unsupported accusations of bias are not enough. A district judge, rather than the magistrate judge, decides a motion to withdraw consent.
Court’s analysis
Austin argued that he had intended to consent only for narrow alternative-dispute-resolution settlement purposes and withdrew his consent after learning that the University did not think alternative dispute resolution was appropriate. The court found that the record did not support this account. Austin first tried to withdraw his consent on March 21, 2024, before the University filed its alternative-dispute-resolution certification and before, according to Austin’s filings, the University informed him of its position on March 22.
The court further held that, even accepting Austin’s explanation as genuine, it did not satisfy the heightened requirements for withdrawal. The consent form unambiguously covered all further proceedings, including trial and final judgment. The court concluded that Austin’s asserted misunderstanding did not establish good cause or extraordinary circumstances.
The court also held that Austin’s voluntary dismissal did not make the motion moot. Because Austin had not withdrawn the motion and the University’s sanctions motion still required resolution, the dispute over which judge had authority to decide that motion remained live.
Disposition
The court DENIED Austin’s motion to withdraw consent to magistrate-judge jurisdiction and returned the case to Judge Ryu for further proceedings. The opinion does not decide the underlying racial-discrimination, negligence, or contract claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.