George Jarvis Austin v. Georgetown University

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GEORGE JARVIS AUSTIN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY;
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW
CENTER ORGANIZATION; DOE,
Photographer Commissioned by
Georgetown; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION, Federal Student Aid,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 21-16191
D.C. No. 4:19-cv-05631-YGR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 16, 2023**
Before: BENNETT, MILLER, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
George Jarvis Austin appeals pro se from the district court’s order
dismissing for lack of personal jurisdiction his action alleging federal and state law
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
MAY 22 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 21-16191
claims against Georgetown University and Georgetown University Law Center.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2). Axiom Foods, Inc. v. Acerchem
Int'l, Inc., 874 F.3d 1064, 1067 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Austin’s claims against the
Georgetown defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction because Austin failed to
allege facts sufficient to establish that these defendants had enough claim-related
contacts with California to provide the court with specific personal jurisdiction
over them. See Williams v. Yamaha Motor Co., 851 F.3d 1015, 1022-25 (9th Cir.
2017) (discussing requirements for specific personal jurisdiction).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Austin’s
operative complaint without leave to amend because further amendment would be
futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th
Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard for review and explaining that leave to amend
may be denied where amendment would be futile); Miller v. Yokohama Tire Corp.,
358 F.3d 616, 622 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Where the plaintiff has previously filed an
amended complaint . . . the district court’s discretion to deny leave to amend is
particularly broad.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 21-16191
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --