Osterbur v. United States of America
| James Frank Osterbur |
| United States of America |
| 2:2026cv02110 |
| April 13, 2026 |
| U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois |
| Ronald L Hanna |
| Jonathan E Hawley |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Fed. Question |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 12, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 6 JUDGMENT entered. (ED) |
Filing 5
TEXT ORDER Entered by Judge Hawley: On 4/24/2026, the Magistrate Judge indicated that a review of the pro se Plaintiff's #1 Complaint raised a few threshold concerns. First, the Complaint failed to set forth a "short and plain statement" of both the grounds for the Court's jurisdiction and "the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief" as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1)-(2). Nor did the Complaint set forth any cognizable legal claims or make a coherent demand for a legal remedy. Also, the Court noted that while the United States and the State of Illinois were listed as Defendants, those Defendants are generally immune from suit. The Magistrate Judge ordered the Plaintiff to show cause in writing, no later than 5/8/2026, why this case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. On 5/6/2026, the Plaintiff filed not one but two #3 , #4 Responses. The Court has reviewed those Responses which are a continuation of the Plaintiffs Complaint: rambling, lengthy, incoherent, and repetitive, among other shortcomings. Rather than provide a short and plain statement of the grounds for this Court's jurisdiction and a claim showing he is entitled to relief, the Plaintiff instead makes sweeping and exceptionally general arguments about several unrelated topics. While a court must construe a pro se plaintiff's complaint liberally, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), this particular Plaintiff is no stranger to litigation. He previously filed 11 cases in this district, his cases were several times against either the United States or State of Illinois, and his cases were repeatedly dismissed for lack of subject jurisdiction or failure to state a claim or for being wholly insubstantial or frivolous. In fact, in July 2011, a judge in this district sua sponte enjoined the Plaintiff from filing any further lawsuits, motions, or pleadings in the Urbana Division of this district unless filed through counsel and directed the Clerk to return unfiled any papers the Plaintiff attempted to file that did not comply with that particular order. Osterbur v. State of Illinois Governor P. Quinn, No. 2:11-cv-02111-HAB-DGB (C.D. Ill. July 20, 2011) (Baker, J.). Another judge in this district, the very next day in July 2011, noted what a frequent filer the Plaintiff was and that all his complaints except for one, were dismissed for the reasons mentioned herein lack of subject matter jurisdiction, failure to state a claim, etcetera. Osterbur v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, No. 2:10-cv-02277-MPM-DGB (C.D. Ill. July 21, 2011) (McCuskey, J.) (noting the filing restriction Judge Baker imposed, further enjoining Osterbur from filing any further lawsuits, motions, or pleadings in all divisions other than habeas corpus petitions and criminal cases in which he was a party defendant of this Court, unless filed through counsel, and directing the Clerks in all divisions of this Court to return unfiled any papers that Osterbur attempted to file that did not comply with Judge McCuskey's order) (emphasis added). Ultimately, in this case, while the Order to Show Cause is now DISCHARGED, the Court also now DISMISSES this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment and close this case. The Clerk is further directed to send a copy of this Text Order to the pro se Plaintiff. (ED) Modified on 5/14/2026 to reflect entered by Judge Hawley (ED).
|
| Filing 4 Response to 4/24/2026 Text Order by James Frank Osterbur. (ED) |
| Filing 3 Response to 4/24/2026 Text Order by James Frank Osterbur. (ED) |
|
Filing 2
TEXT ORDER: A review of Plaintiff's #1 Complaint raises a few threshold concerns. To begin, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 details the type of material that all complaints must contain. They must set forth a "short and plain statement" of both the grounds for the court's jurisdiction" and "the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1)-(2). And parties must make a "demand for the relief they seek. Plaintiff's complaint satisfies none of these requirements. It does not invoke any recognized ground for this Court's jurisdiction; it does not set forth any cognizable legal claims; and it does not make a coherent demand for a legal remedy. Instead, Plaintiff's complaint lists grievances against the United States, the media, and certain unnamed "universities," who Plaintiff insists have all perpetrated "criminal assaults on our democracy." (Doc. 1 at 5.) Likely fatal to Plaintiff's suit, however, is that he has named the United States as a defendant. But the United States is immune from suit unless it has consented (which Plaintiff does not allege). United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 399 (1976). Plaintiff also names the State of Illinois as a defendant, but it too enjoys sovereign immunity. So under most circumstances Illinois cannot be sued either. See Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 713 (1999). In light of these defects, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiff's response should be filed in writing, on the docket, no later than May 8, 2026. The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail Plaintiff a copy of this Text Order. Entered by Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Hanna on April 24, 2026. (NL)
|
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against United States of America (Filing fee $ 405. Receipt #200002578), filed by James Frank Osterbur. (RAH) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Illinois Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Osterbur v. United States of America | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: James Frank Osterbur | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: United States of America | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
