Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

James F. Osterbur v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS URBANA DIVISION


July 21, 2011

JAMES F. OSTERBUR, PLAINTIFF,
v.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael P. McCUSKEY Chief U.S. District Judge

E-FILED Thursday, 21 July, 2011 03:04:25 PM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

ORDER

On July 5, 2011, Magistrate Judge David G. Bernthal filed a Report and Recommendation (#27) in this case. Judge Bernthal recommended that the Motion to Dismiss (#14) be granted and the pro se Complaint (#1) filed by Plaintiff, James F. Osterbur, be dismissed as to all Defendants. On July 19, 2011, Plaintiff filed a pro se Objection (#28) to the Report and Recommendation.

This court has carefully reviewed Judge Bernthal's Report and Recommendation (#27) and Plaintiff's pro se Objection (#28). This court notes, as it has in a prior case filed by the pro se Plaintiff, that this review has been complicated by Plaintiff's rambling and mostly unintelligible filings with this court. Following this court's careful and thorough de novo review, this court agrees with and accepts Judge Bernthal's Report and Recommendation. This court completely agrees that Plaintiff "does not make any specific factual allegations, and makes unspecified claims of constitutional violations." This court further agrees that "to the extent Plaintiff identifies broad issues such as general failure of United States employees to uphold the Constitution, these allegations address issues beyond the power of the federal courts to solve." Accordingly, this court agrees that Plaintiff's pro se Complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted.

This court further notes that Plaintiff has been a frequent filer of complaints in this district. All of his complaints, except for one recently filed complaint, have been dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, for failure to state a claim or for being wholly insubstantial or frivolous. In dismissing Plaintiff's appeal from the dismissal of one of his cases, the Seventh Circuit stated that his complaint was "completely incoherent and contains no discernable claims." Osterbur v. United States of America, Case No. 08-3954 (February 4, 2009). This has been true of all of Plaintiff's filings. On July 20, 2011, Senior United States District Judge Harold A. Baker entered an order dismissing a case filed by Plaintiff. Osterbur v. Quinn, Case No. 11-CV-2111 (docket #20). Judge Baker discussed some of Plaintiff's prior filings and sua sponte enjoined Plaintiff "from filing any further lawsuits, motions or pleadings in the United States District Court, Central District of Illinois, Urbana Division (other than habeas corpus petitions and criminal cases in which he is a party defendant), unless those lawsuits, pleadings and motions are filed through counsel." Judge Baker further ordered that the clerk was directed to return unfiled any papers that Plaintiff attempts to file that do not comply with his order.

This court agrees with Judge Baker that enough is enough. This court therefore sua sponte orders that Plaintiff is enjoined from filing any further lawsuits, motions or pleadings in the United States District Court, Central District of Illinois, all divisions (other than habeas corpus petitions and criminal cases in which he is a party defendant) unless those lawsuits, pleadings and motions are filed through counsel.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:

(1) The Report and Recommendation (#27) is accepted by this court.

(2) The Motion to Dismiss (#14) is GRANTED and Plaintiff's Complaint (#1) is dismissed as to all Defendants.

(3) Plaintiff is enjoined from filing any further lawsuits, motions or pleadings in the United States District Court, Central District of Illinois, all divisions (other than habeas corpus petitions and criminal cases in which he is a party defendant) unless those lawsuits, pleadings and motions are filed through counsel. The clerks in all divisions of the Central District of Illinois are directed to return unfiled any papers that Plaintiff attempts to file that do not comply with this order.

(4) This case is terminated. Accordingly, any remaining pending motions are MOOT.

20110721

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.