Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge John A. Nordberg Sitting Judge if Otherthan Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 12 C 1794 and

12 C 1751

DATE 6/6/2012

CASE

TITLE

Michael Georgakis vs. All Chemistry Professors University of Chicago;

Michael Georgakis vs. All Chemistry Professors Northwestern University

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Plaintiff’s requests to proceed in forma pauperis are denied in Cases No. 12-1794 and 12-1751. The

complaints in both cases are dismissed without prejudice. All other motions are denied as moot.

O[ For further details see text below.] Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT

 Plaintiff Michael Georgakis, proceeding pro se, recently filed six cases in this district. Georgakis v.

Mock, 12-1204; Georgakis v. All Chemistry Professors Univ. of Ill. at Urbana, 12-1734; Georgakis v. All

Chemistry Professors Univ. of Illinois at Chicago, 12-1733; Georgakis v. All Chemistry Professors at Loyola,

12-1749; Georgakis v. All Chemistry Professors at Northwestern Univ., 12-1751; Goergakis v. All Chemistry

Professors at the Univ. of Chicago, 12-1794. The latter two cases were initially assigned to other judges and

then later transferred to us. All the cases generally involve the basic allegation that graduate school chemistry

professors take advantage of chemistry graduate students by stealing their ideas and by profiting off their

work. In 1972, plaintiff was a chemistry graduate student at the University of Illinois where he got into a

dispute with his advisor, Professor Mock, and was never awarded a PhD degree.

 In all six cases, plaintiff filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis. In three of the six cases, the

request was denied on the ground that the complaint failed to state a valid claim. In Case No 12-1734, Judge

Leinenweber denied the IFP request in a 3-page minute order dated March 26, 2012. Judge Leinenweber

concluded that, although plaintiff qualified as indigent, his claims failed on the merits. This order explained

why each of the claims (copyright, false claims, civil RICO, and conversion) was lacking in merit. For

example, the Order states that plaintiff failed to explain which parts, if any of his research were subject to

copyright protection and that his claim appeared to be time-barred in any event.

 In Case No. 12-1733, Judge Kennelly likewise denied plaintiff’s IFP request. See 4/5/12 Minute Order. 

Before denying the IFP request, Judge Kennelly gave plaintiff several opportunies to amend his complaint. 

Judge Kennelly eventually concluded that with regard to the Copyright Act and RICO claims plaintiff had

not alleged that he suffered any injury and thus lacked standing to sue. Id. As for the False Claims Act

claim, Judge Kennelly concluded that plaintiff failed to allege any particulars about the publication or grants

as required by Rule 9(b). Id. He therefore denied the IFP request pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), finding

12C1794 Michael Georgakis vs. All Chemistry Professors, University of Chicago Page 1 of 2
STATEMENT

that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Id. The complaint in that case

named as defendants “all chemistry professors at the University of Illinois at Chicago.” 

 In Case No. 12-1749, Judge Conlon dismissed the complaint without prejudice and denied the IFP request

as moot. See 4/9/12 Order. This complaint was directed at “all chemistry and biochemistry professors at

Loyola University.” Judge Conlon held that the “complaint fails to name any specific defendants or specific

allegations involving Loyola professors.”

 In Case No. 12-1204, Judge Feinerman granted plaintiff’s IFP request. He did not analyze plaintiff’s

specific claims in granting the IFP request. According to the docket, defendant filed a motion to dismiss. 

Plaintiff thereafter filed a combined response brief and a motion for leave to file an amended complaint. No

ruling has yet been made on the motion to dismiss. This case before Judge Feinerman, based on a quick

review of the complaint, seems to focus somewhat more directly than the other five cases on the particular

facts concerning plaintiff’s interaction with Professor Mock, in 1972, while at the University of Illinois,

Chicago.

 In reviewing the two complaints and the two IFP requests currently pending before this Court, they appear

to be identical, likely a photocopy of each other. Each is 67 pages and contains a mixture of handwritten

allegations combined with various printouts of scholarly articles with passages underlined. Very little of the

complaint concerns facts pertaining to plaintiff’s own personal situation. Instead these complaints focus

mostly on generalized allegations about the general nature of science research in American universities. 

However, toward the end of each complaint, plaintiff briefly veers back to his personal situation by alleging

that “my case concerns Dr. William L. Mock, professor of chemistry, University of Illinois at Chicago, my

advisor at UIC.” (The pages are not numbered but this quote is from page 63 of the complaint as it was

scanned by the Court’s docketing department.) 

 In addition to reviewing these two complaints against each other, we also have reviewed them against the

three complaints in the cases dismissed by Judges Leinenweber, Kennelly, and Conlon. Here again, the

complaints are identical photocopies of each other. Each is 67 pages. The only difference we could find is

that there is a different university listed on page 1. We have reviewed the reasoning and analysis provided in

the three minute orders in these cases. We agree with their conclusion that plaintiff’s four claims are not

viable. We therefore adopt the reasoning provided in those minute orders, and see no need to repeat the same

analysis again in this minute order. We do note that the two cases here are directed at two universities which

plaintiff apparently had no contact with, and his complaints against these two universities both state that his

case primarily concerns his dispute with Professor Mock. In this regard, we note that the case before Judge

Feinerman, which as noted above ostensibly focuses more on Professor Mock, is still pending. For all the

above reasons, plaintiff’s two IFP requests are denied.

12C1794 Michael Georgakis vs. All Chemistry Professors, University of Chicago Page 2 of 2