MOTION FILED AFTER DISMISSAL BY COURT
G:\97\P1397\P1397PMI 002
EMW/sIc
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF
JAMES F. OSTERBUR, )
)
)
)
Plaintiff.
)
)
)
v.
CARLE CLINIC INC;
CARLE INC.:
)
\MERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION; )
THE STATE OF
)
)
)
)
Defendants.
No.
05-2038
DEFENDANTS^ RESPONSE
TO
PLAINTIFFS FRCP 60(b) MOTION
NOW COME the defendants, CARLE CLINIC ASSOCIATION, P.C., improperly
designated as "Carle Clinic
Inc.", and
M. Wagner ofHeyl, Royster, Voelker & Alien, and as and for their Response to the plaintiffs
"Reply to the Court" [#9] designated and construed as a Rule 60(b) motion, state as follows:
1. While plaintiffs "Reply to the Court" is confusing, these defendants are
assuming it is directed to this Court's Order entered February 28, 2005, which dismissed
HEYLROYSTER
VOELKER
&ALLEN
plaintiffs initial "Complaint", yet granted plaintiff fourteen (14) days to file an amended
complaint in accordance with this Court's instructions and rulings.
Fax (217) 344-9295
(217) 344-0060
2. Any motion pursuant to Rule 60(b) must be justifiably based on one of the six
allowable reasons. Notwithstanding that plaintiffs four- page "motion" suggests conclusory or
imaginary statements of alleged "misconduct' which might possibly fit within a strained
interpretation of the provisions of Rule 60(b)(3), all such statements are without any support or
merit and simply stated for inflammatory purposes and can thus be disregarded.
a. Other than personal dissatisfaction with this Court's Order of February
28, 2005, there is no proper basis stated to justify consideration, much less granting, this
pleading or motion pursuant to Rule 60(b).
b. Plaintiffs Motion at page 1 notes: 'This trial is a FIRST AMENDMENT
REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES .. .", yet this simple conclusory reference to the First
Amendment provides no more subject matter jurisdiction to this Court than the initial
"Complaint" did. Without this reference to the First Amendment on page 1, the
"motion" is totally baseless and without any merit under Rule 60(b). This conclusory
reference adds nothing to the plaintiffs pleading, which must be deemed to have no
merit.
c. After complaining about human rights violations (at 1); an effort to
bankrupt this nation (at 2); apparent death threats (at 3-4); increasing world population
(at 4); global warming (at 4), and decreasing national resources, this plaintiff is no
closer to suggesting any possible subject matter jurisdiction than was his initial attempt
3. As a Rule 60(b) motion does not suspend the operation of the Order addressed,
if plaintiff files no amended complaint on or before March 14, 2005, these defendants request
HEYLROYSTER
VOELKER
&ALLEN
that this matter be formally dismissed with prejudice, in its entirety, and with no further leave to
amend.
Fax (217) 344-9295
(217) 344-0060
WHEREFORE, these defendants, CARLE CLINIC ASSOCIATION, P.C. and CARLE
LETTER TO ME, REGARDING “the return to court
HEYLROYSTER
- VOELKER"
&ALLEN
Fax (217) 344-9295
(217) 344-0060
March 30, 2005
Mr. James F. Osterbur
2191 C.R. 2500 E
IN RE: Our File No. : 04505-P1397
Case No. : 05-203S; LJSDC, Central District ofIL
James F. Osterbur v. Carle Clinic Association, P.C, etai
Dear Mr. Osterbur:
I have just been advised by Carlo Clinic Association,
P.C. and
that you have sent to them a copy of your recent pleading or filings with the federal court in
this matter. Those two entities are my clients, and there should be no personal contact with
either of those two entities by you for purposes of this litigation. If you have any materials
or correspondence to serve on
Carle Clinic Association or
respect to this litigation, it should come to my attention. Please ensure that all future such
contacts or communications concerning this litigation go through my office.
Thank you for your help in this matter.
Very truly yours,
LETTER SENT TO ME AFTER ORIGINAL FILING.
Carle Clinic Association
IN FURTHER CORRESPONDENCE REFER TO CHART NUMBER:
CERTIFIED MAIL
February 14, 2005
Mr. James Osterbur
2191 CR
RE: Clinic #0436190
Dear Mr. Osterbur:
As a result of your pending litigation against Carle Clinic Association, we regret to inform you
that no further non-emergency medical care and treatment will be scheduled for you and your
immediate family with any Carle Clinic Association physician or other Carle Clinic Association
health care provider after 30 days from the date of this letter. We will be pleased to assist you in
transferring you and your family's care and treatment records to another physician or health care
provider not affiliated with the Carle Clinic Association. Please contact our Health Information
Services Department at 383-3381 immediately so that arrangements can be made to transfer your
medical records to the healthcare provider of your choice.
Very truly yours,
/^TW^f
Kirk Moberg, M.D.
Senior Vice-President, Chief Medical Officer
KM:med
My reply: IN A UNRELATED MATTER
the law firm of Heylroyster, Voelker, & Allen
have sent me a letter dated 3/30/05
file no: 04505-P1397
located at:
informing me, that quote ...“Those tow entities are my clients, and there should be no personal contact with or correspondence to serve on Carle Clinic Association or Carle Foundation Hospital with respect to this litigation, it should come to my attention”...
With regard to this letter, I submit/ that as the defendants named in this trial they do have an absolute right to any information as may be served discussed or distinctly about their responsibilities in this matter. I regard this letter as an illegal attempt to “cover up”/ rather than enlighten the defendants on matters which may or may not be of concern to them.
Therefore this is the last letter to Carle Clinic or Carle Foundation in this matter/ all others will go to the lawyer at the above address: UNLESS I am instructed by either Carle entity that it should not be so. This is notice, and due to anyone associated with any trial. The lawyer is not the defendant/ any “trouble” it may cause is entirely irrelevant to me. Let Carle decide.