Austin v. Georgetown University

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: March 20, 2024
• Docket: 3:24-cv-00260
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 GEORGE JARVIS AUSTIN, Case No. 24-cv-00260-DMR

8 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 9 v.

10 GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY, et al., 11 Defendants.

12 Self-represented Plaintiff George Jarvis Austin filed a complaint against Defendant 13 Georgetown University in January 2024. He filed an amended complaint on March 13, 2024 that 14 adds District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers as a defendant. [Docket No. 14 (Am. Compl.).] 15 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Georgetown University is acting “in concert with” Judge Gonzalez 16 Rogers to violate his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, Title VI, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and 42 17 U.S.C. § 1985. Id. at 2. Austin further alleges that he “adds [Judge Gonzalez Rogers] as a 18 Defendant not for liability in the damages portion of the Demand, but simply as the Supreme 19 Court, Ninth Circuit, and California Supreme Court explicitly provides for injunctive relief to 20 prevent her ongoing negative, administrative, & discriminatory interference with Mr. Austin’s 21 exercise of his Constitutional Rights to Due Process, Equal Protection, & other fundamental 22 rights, creating both conspiratorial criminal, & civil injunctive, liability for Ms. [Gonzalez 23 Rogers].” Id. at 46 (emphasis in original). 24 The amended complaint does not allege any specific actions by Judge Gonzalez Rogers 25 and the basis for Plaintiff’s claim(s) against Judge Gonzalez Rogers is not clear. However, 26 “[j]udges are absolutely immune from civil liability for damages for their judicial acts.” Mullis v. 27 U.S. Bankr. Court for Dist. of Nev., 828 F.2d 1385, 1388 (9th Cir. 1987). Moreover, a federal 1 injunctive, and other equitable relief. Moore v. Brewster, 96 F.3d 1240, 1243 (9th Cir. 1996). To 2 || the extent this action challenges acts performed by Judge Gonzalez Rogers in her judicial capacity, 3 it is completely barred by judicial immunity. Accordingly, by no later than April 3, 2024, 4 || Plaintiff shall explain in writing why his claim(s) against Judge Gonzalez Rogers should not be 5 || dismissed based on judicial immunity. If Plaintiff does not respond by April 3, 2024, the court 6 || will recommend that Judge Gonzalez Rogers be dismissed from this action. 7 GS DISTRIGS 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. ky SO’

9 || Dated: March 20, 2024 IS 90 ORDERED □□ 10 Dios M Ryu > A orlegoN □□ O Toe DODDA © a SY LDS LJ Vv oY 14 DY STRIC® 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28