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 Breyer recognized Austin’s voluntary dismissal without prejudice, while Georgetown’s sanctions motion remained pending.
George Jarvis Austin’s case was dismissed without prejudice. Georgetown University’s motion to dismiss became moot, while its sanctions motion remained pending. The claims against Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers were not resolved on the merits in this order.
What happened
Austin v. Georgetown University began when self-represented plaintiff George Jarvis Austin sued Georgetown University and later added District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers as a defendant.
Austin filed a notice voluntarily dismissing the case before Georgetown served an answer or moved for summary judgment, and clarified that the dismissal was without prejudice. The court therefore treated the case as dismissed on April 5, 2024; the order to show cause and Georgetown’s motion to dismiss became moot, and the initial case-management conference was canceled.
Judge Charles Breyer ruled that the dismissal did not end the court’s authority to decide Georgetown’s pending sanctions motion. The sanctions hearing was canceled and could be set again after briefing was completed.
The detailed version
- Austin v. Georgetown University · No. 3:24-cv-00260
- Charles Breyer
- Apr. 10, 2024
Background
Self-represented plaintiff George Jarvis Austin filed a complaint against Georgetown University on January 16, 2024. He later filed a third amended complaint that added District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers as a defendant. The court ordered Austin to explain why the claims against Judge Gonzalez Rogers should not be dismissed based on judicial immunity. Austin also sought to withdraw his consent to magistrate-judge jurisdiction, but Judge Edward J. Davila denied that request.
On April 2, 2024, Georgetown filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint. On April 5, Georgetown filed a motion for sanctions asking the court to dismiss Austin’s claims with prejudice, declare him a vexatious litigant, and require him to obtain court approval before filing new cases or motions against Georgetown.
Voluntary dismissal
Austin filed a notice of voluntary dismissal on April 5, 2024, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). After the court asked him to clarify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice, Austin stated that it was without prejudice.
The court held that Austin was entitled to dismiss the case without a court order because he filed the notice before service of an answer or a motion for summary judgment. The court therefore determined that Austin dismissed the case on April 5, 2024. The order to show cause concerning the claims against Judge Gonzalez Rogers and Georgetown’s motion to dismiss were moot, and the April 17, 2024 initial case-management conference was vacated.
Sanctions motion
The court held that Austin’s voluntary dismissal did not eliminate its authority to decide Georgetown’s pending motion for sanctions. That motion remained pending. The court vacated the May 23, 2024 sanctions hearing and stated that the hearing could be reset, if necessary, after the briefing was completed.
Disposition
The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. The order to show cause and Georgetown’s motion to dismiss were moot. Georgetown’s motion for sanctions was not resolved by this order and remained pending; its scheduled hearing was vacated.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.