Austin v. Georgetown University
3:24-cv-00260
| N.D. Cal. | Oct 16, 2024Background
- George Jarvis Austin, proceeding pro se, has filed 24 lawsuits in the Northern District of California.
- Repeatedly, Austin has sued the same defendants, including filing nine lawsuits against Georgetown University with substantially identical allegations.
- Austin's lawsuits often include claims against federal judges who have ruled against him in previous cases.
- The majority of Austin's lawsuits have been dismissed, either voluntarily or by the court.
- Defendants moved to have Austin declared a vexatious litigant.
- The court held a hearing on the motion, and Austin had an opportunity to respond.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Notice and opportunity to be heard | Proper notice not asserted as disputed | Austin had notice and replied to motion | Austin had both notice and opportunity to be heard |
| Adequacy of record | Did not contest; likely argues filings merit review | Record shows repetitive, abusive filings | Sufficient record of abusive litigation |
| Narrow tailoring of order | No argument shown | Scope appropriate to pattern of conduct | Order narrowly tailored to Austin's conduct |
| Frivolity/harassing nature | Complaints legitimate grievances | Claims are frivolous, repetitive, harassing | Austin's actions are frivolous and harassing |
Key Cases Cited
- De Long v. Hennessy, 912 F.2d 1144 (9th Cir. 1990) (outlines standards for declaring a party vexatious litigant)
- Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2007) (discusses requirements for issuing prefiling restrictions on vexatious litigants)
- Pac. Harbor Capital, Inc. v. Carnival Air Lines, Inc., 210 F.3d 1112 (9th Cir. 2000) (reiterates necessity of notice and opportunity to be heard)