Michael Georgakis v. Illinois State University
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 14348
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- Georgakis, pro se, sued nine ISU chemistry professors and ISU for fraud in obtaining federal grants based on allegedly plagiarized papers.
- The suit is framed as a qui tam action, seeking relief for the government rather than for Georgakis personally, but he is not a lawyer.
- Georgakis does not allege any personal injury or harm, undermining standing in a representative capacity.
- The district court dismissed on four grounds: lack of injury (jurisdiction), frivolousness (franchise of jurisdiction), lack of representation by a lawyer for the real party in interest, and failure to state a claim.
- The court treated the action as frivolous and harassing, noting Georgakis’s pro se filings, prior related lawsuits, and lack of link between alleged fraud and subsequent grant applications.
- The Seventh Circuit concluded the judge had authority to dismiss with prejudice due to frivolousness and harassment, and affirmed the dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing/representation in a qui tam suit | Georgakis contends he may represent the government despite no lawyer. | The United States cannot be represented by a nonlawyer; lack of standing to sue. | Dismissal affirmed; lack of representation and standing proper. |
| Prejudice form of dismissal for frivolous/harassing suit | Discretionary dismissal without prejudice is appropriate. | Dismissal with prejudice is warranted to prevent harassment and frivolousness. | Dismissal with prejudice affirmed; frivolous and harassing nature supported prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528 (Supreme Court 1974) (frivolousness can deprive federal courts of jurisdiction)
- Carr v. Tillery, 591 F.3d 909 (7th Cir. 2010) (standing to sue and jurisdictional concerns in frivolous suits)
- Crowley Cutlery Co. v. United States, 849 F.2d 273 (7th Cir. 1988) (frivolousness as a ground to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction)
- United States ex rel. Lu v. Ou, 368 F.3d 773 (7th Cir. 2004) (pro se relator limitations and representation issues)
- Wiesmueller v. Kosobucki, 513 F.3d 784 (7th Cir. 2008) (standing in class-like context and dismissal considerations)
- El v. AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc., 710 F.3d 748 (7th Cir. 2013) (frivolous/harassment dismissal and prejudice considerations)
- Mergent Services v. Flaherty, 540 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. 2008) (private relators and standing in civil actions)