UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

FILED

APR 11 1994

JAMES F . OSTERBUR,

Plaintiff

vs. No. 94-2060

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,)

Defendãnts .

ORDER

The plaintiff, James Osterbur, has brought this federal action purportedly pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The proposed class action seeks vindication of the constitutional rights of "the common public citizen." The plaintiff sues the United States government, the State of Illinois, and the Medical Industry ("as represented by Covenant Medical Center").

By Order of March 18, 1994, the court rejected the complaint, finding the document to be devoid of facts and incomprehensible. Nevertheless, the court gave the plaintiff the opportunity to submit an amended complaint and a memorandum of law in support of his claims.

The plaintiff's response, which consists of a series of legal citations and invectives, is unacceptable and not in compliance with the court's order. The plaintiff has failed to submit a complaint setting forth the basic facts upon which he is suing, and a separate memorandum of law. After reading the plaintiff's rambling reply, the court still is unable to determine either the legal or factual basis for this lawsuit.

It is well established that pro se complaints are to be liberally construed. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), reh'g denied, 405 U.S. 945 (1972). "[A] district court judge should deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis if an action is frivolous or malicious." Wartman v. Branch 7, Civil Division, County Court, Milwaukee County, State of Wisconsin, 510 F.2d 130, 134 (7th Cir. l975), principle reaffirmed in Bryan v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 455, 458 (7th Cir. 1987).

A frivolous complaint is one in which 'the petitioner can make no rational argument in law or facts to support his or her claim for relief." Williams v. Faulkner, 837 F.2d 304, 306 (7th Cir. 1988), aff'd sub nom Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989). Although the plaintiff has submitted two ostensible statements of his claims, the court remains completely at a loss as to what the factual basis for this lawsuit is, or what federal cause of action the plaintiff might have. Because the plaintiff is unable to articulate a colorable claim for relief in federal court, the complaint will be dismissed.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the plaintiffs petition for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The case is dismissed, without prejudice.

Enter this 11th day of april 1994

HAROLD A. BAKER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

'~//>v&Xt

HAROLD A. BAKER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE