1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 GEORGE JARVIS AUSTIN, Case No. 24-cv-00260-CRB

9 Plaintiff,

ORDER DECLARING PLAINTIFF

10 v.

A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT

11 GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY, et al., 12 Defendants.

13 Under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), district courts have the power to 14 enjoin “litigants with abusive and lengthy histories.” De Long v. Hennessy, 912 F.2d 15 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 1990); Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1057 (9th 16 Cir. 2007). Before entering a prefiling order, the Court must find that (1) the litigant was 17 given notice and an opportunity to be heard, (2) there is an adequate record for review, and 18 (3) the order is “narrowly tailored to closely fit the specific vice encountered.” De Long, 19 912 F.2d at 1147–48. The Court must make “substantive findings as to the frivolous or 20 harassing nature of the litigant’s actions.” Id. at 1148 (citation omitted). The Court hereby 21 declares Plaintiff George Jarvis Austin a vexatious litigant. 22 First, Austin was given notice and an opportunity to be heard. Defendants filed 23 their motion to declare Austin a vexatious litigant on April 5, 2024 (dkt. 51), and Austin 24 filed an opposition on April 19 (dkt. 63). This satisfies the notice requirement. See Pac. 25 Harbor Cap., Inc. v. Carnival Air Lines, Inc., 210 F.3d 1112, 1118 (9th Cir. 2000); Ou- 26 Young v. Roberts, 2013 WL 6732118, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2013). 27 Second, there is an adequate record for review. An adequate record is one that 1 Long, 912 F.2d at 1147. Here, the record shows that Austin has filed 24 lawsuits in this 2 District. Three, including this lawsuit, have been against Georgetown with materially 3 identical factual allegations. See Austin v. Georgetown Univ., No. 19-cv-5631-YGR 4 (N.D. Cal. filed Sept. 16, 2019); Austin v. Georgetown Univ., No. 23-cv-5836-YGR (N.D. 5 Cal. filed Nov. 11, 2023). This pattern of suing the same defendant over and over is 6 consistent with Austin’s other lawsuits. See, e.g., Austin v. Kemper Corp. (Ins.), No. 21- 7 cv-3208-SI (N.D. Cal. filed Apr. 29, 2021); Austin v. Kemper Indep. Ins. Co. (2167877), 8 No. 24-cv-1120-EMC (N.D. Cal. filed Feb. 23, 2024); Austin v. Kemper Corp. (Kemper 9 III), No. 24-cv-4183-JD (N.D. Cal. filed July 11, 2024). Furthermore, in this and other 10 cases, Austin ultimately attempted to sue the federal judge who ruled against him. See 11 Am. Compl. (dkt. 14) (asserting claims against District Judge Gonzalez Rogers); Kemper 12 III, No. 24-cv-4183-JD (asserting claims against Chief District Judge Seeborg; District 13 Judges Alsup, Brown Armstrong, Chen, Chesney, Davila, Gonzalez Rogers, Illston, Lin, 14 and Thompson; Chief Magistrate Judge Ryu; and Magistrate Judge Tse) see also Austin v. 15 Chesney, No. 22-cv-2506-WHA (N.D. Cal. filed Apr. 25, 2022) (asserting claims against 16 District Judge Chesney for ruling against him in another case, Austin v. Lyft, No. 21-cv- 17 9345-MMC); Austin v. ABC Legal Servs., LLC, 24-cv-4185-WHO (N.D. Cal. filed July 18 11, 2024) (asserting claims against Chief District Judge Seeborg; District Judges Alsup, 19 Brown Armstrong, Chen, Chesney, Davila, Gonzalez Rogers, Illston, Lin, and Thompson; 20 Chief Magistrate Judge Ryu; and Magistrate Judge Tse). Most of Austin’s federal suits 21 have been dismissed, either by the court or voluntarily. 22 Third, this order is narrowly tailored to Austin. Austin has not limited his litigation 23 to any specific statute or against any defendant, so this order is not limited in either 24 respect. See Molski, 500 F.3d at 1061. Going forward, when filing a pro se complaint in 25 the Northern District of California, Austin must obtain certification from the general duty 26 judge that his complaint is comprehensible and not facially frivolous. 27 Fourth, the underlying lawsuit in this action is frivolous. In Austin’s operative 1 Georgetown (apparently “in concert with” Judge Gonzalez Rogers) violated his privacy 2 rights by using a photograph in which he appeared in its marketing materials and 3 discriminated against him in his attempt to remedy this alleged privacy violation. Yet he 4 fails (for now the third time) to allege any facts that would justify the Court’s exercise of 5 personal jurisdiction over Georgetown—a fatal flaw even if his allegations were to have 6 merit. This reflects a pattern of harassing behavior, and there is no reason for this Court to 7 believe that Austin will stop filing frivolous lawsuits against Defendants or any other 8 entities going forward. 9 For the foregoing reasons, Austin must obtain leave of the court before filing any 10 additional pro se lawsuits in the Northern District of California. To do so, Austin must 11 submit a copy of his complaint, a letter requesting that his complaint be filed, and a copy 12 of this order to the Clerk of the Court. Austin may proceed with a pro se lawsuit only with 13 approval from the general duty judge. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 Dated: October 16, 2024

CHARLES R. BREYER

16 United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27