Recopied for electronic transmission space
Gen # 4-93-0847
IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF
STATE OF ILLINOIS
FOURTH DISTRICT
JAMES OSTERBUR Appeal from the circuit court of the sixth judicial circuit champaign county, IL
PLAINTIFF/ APPELLANT Trial court 92-c-1222
The honorable J. G. Townsend
VS. Judge presiding
COVENANT MEDICAL CENTER
DEFENDANT/ APPELLEE
MOTION TO DISMISS OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE
Motion for a pre-trial conference
Now comes Covenant medical center, by its attorneys, Thomas Mamer, Haughey, and moves this honorable court to dismiss the appeal filed in this matter or in the alternative to schedule a pre-hearing conference and in support of said motion states as follows:
1. The plaintiff, James Osterbur, the appellant in this matter ( hereafter simply "plaintiff"), has represented himself pro se at the trial court level and is now attempting to appeal the decision of the trial court also pro se.
2. The plaintiff has filed documents which apparently the appellate court has to this point accepted as a docketing statement, along with a brief.
3. The defendant, Covenant medical center, has received a document titled "pre-trial documents to case number 92-c-1222, now gen number 4-93-039, Osterbur, v. Covenant medical center, plus remainder of trial 92-c-1222 not included in brief". It is assumed that this document purports to be the report of proceedings and/ or record required to be filed.
4. the court has ruled that the appellee's brief is due to be filed on or before December 17, 1993.
5.The plaintiff's "brief" does not comply with supreme court rule 341 (e) (1) in that it does not include points and subpoints in the argument or citation of authorities as required.
6. The appellant's brief does not comply with supreme court rule 341 (e) (2) in that there is no statement of the nature of action.
7. The brief provided does not comply with Il supreme court rule 341 (e) (3) in that it does not provide a statement of the issue or issues presented for review.
8. The brief provided does not comply with IL supreme court rule 341 (e) (4) in that it does not provide a brief statement or explanation or the jurisdictional basis of appeal, except to cite two irrelevant portion of the United States constitution.
9. The brief does not comply with supreme court rule 341 (e) (5) in that to the extent this brief questions the operation of certain statutes or constitutional provision, those provisions are not provided or cited.
10. The brief does not comply with supreme court rule 341 (e) (6) in that there is no coherent statement of facts included in the brief and certainly no reference to any pages of the record on appeal by which the defendant could discern the context or chronology of the "facts" scattered throughout the brief.
11. The brief does not comply with Il supreme court rule 341 (e) (7) in that the argument as provided does not explain the reasons for the contentions of the appellant or any citation to any authorities or any references to any pages of the record relied on.
12. The brief does not comply with Il supreme court rule 341 (e) (8) in that there is no conclusion and no statement of the precise relief sought by the plaintiff through this appeal.
13. Contrary to Ill supreme court rule 342, there is no appendix to the brief.
WHEREFORE, the defendant states that it is incapable of responding to the matter now on appeal in its present form and requests that the appeal be dismissed.
Respectfully submitted David E. Krchak
In the alternative, the defendant requests under Il supreme court rule 310 that the court appoint a judge who will not participate in the decision of the case to preside at a pre-hearing conference to attempt to discern the issues which the plaintiff wishes to be heard on appeal.
RE-TYPED TO CONSERVE ELECTRONIC TRANSFER SPACE
Gen no 4-93-0847
IN THE APPELLATE COURT
Of the state of Il, fourth district
JAMES OSTERBUR Appeal from the circuit court of the sixth judicial circuit champaign county, IL Trial court # 92-c-1222
PLAINTIFF/ APPELLANT the Honorable J. G. Townsend
Judge presiding
V.
COVENANT MEDICAL CENTER
DEFENDANT/ APPELLEE
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL
Now comes the defendant, covenant medical center, by its attorneys, Thomas, Mamer, Haughey, and provides the following authorities in support of its motion to dismiss the pending appeal;
1. The brief filed in this matter resembles a number of briefs which the appellate court has ruled inadequate.
2. In Boeger vs. Boeger, 147 ILL, App. 3d 629, 498 ne. 2d 814, 101 Il dec. 490 (second district 1986), the court in referring to the appellants pro se brief stated:
"The brief in the present case is clearly inadequate. It contains no summary of points and authorities and no fact statement as such. The section entitled "argument" consists of a rambling, often disjointed recitation of facts, often with no apparent relevance to the present litigation. It contains no indication of what, exactly, are appellant's objections to the trial court's ruling and contains no citation of authority. The remainder of the brief consists of photocopies of various documents, many taken from the record in this cause. Their relevance to defendants argument is not explained. The appellate court dismissed the appeal.
3. In Waitcus vs. Village of Gilberts, 199 Ill app 3d 102, 556 ne 2d 1261, 145 IL dec. 359 (second district 1990), the court found the appellant's brief lacking and stated regarding a portion of the brief:
"This section of the brief is filled with conclusion and bits of facts but is totally devoid of any citation to case or statutory authority. In addition, no attempt at coherent argument is made. This section of the brief is entirely inadequate and we consider the contentions raised therein to be waived."
4. In the case Application of Anderson, 162 ILL. App 3d 815, 516 ne. 2d 860, 114 Ill dec. 705 (second district 1987), the court pointed out:
An appellant may not make a point merely by stating it without presenting arguments in support of it, and this court will not argue a case for an appellant. A court of review is entitled to have briefs submitted that are articulate, organized, and present cohesive legal argument in conformity with supreme court rules. Any issue which has not been adequately presented to this court for review may be deemed waived. (Citations omitted)
5. In Britt vs. Federal land Bank ass'n of St. Louis, 152 ILL app 3d 605, 505 ne. 2d 387, 106 IL dec 81 (second district 1987), the court commented:
While purporting to cite authority, generally, for what is set forth in their briefs as issues on appeal, plaintiffs have failed to comply with supreme court rule 341 (e) (7). We do not view the inclusion of citations to irrelevant authorities scattered throughout their brief to constitute even an attempt to comply with the rule. In fact, plaintiff's briefs are nothing more than a compilation of disjointed and nonsensical claims and legal conclusions totally unsupported by citations to the record or relevant legal authority. We may treat the issues raised as having been waived for failure to cite authority.
6. The brief and other material filed by the plaintiff in this case could be aptly described by any of the four quotations from the appellate court decisions. Even disregarding the plaintiff's utter failure to follow Ill supreme court rule 341 (e), the appeal should be dismissed because neither the brief nor any other materials provided by the plaintiff explain why he is disagreeing with the trial court judge or what relief he is suggesting from the appellate court.
WHEREFORE, the defendant - appellee, covenant medical center, moves this court to dismiss the appeal.
Respectfully submitted David E Krchak
dated 28 of oct, 1993
Retyped for electronic transfer space
No 4-93-0487
IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
FOURTH DISTRICT
JAMES OSTERBUR Appeal from circuit court of champaign
PLAINTIFF/ APPELLANT county No 92c1222
V. Honorable John G. Townsend
COVENANT MEDICAL CENTER judge presiding
DEFENDANT/ APPELLEE
ORDER
Plaintiff has filed documents which are purportedly a record and a brief for purposes of this appeal. The record is not certified by the circuit clerk and appears to consist of documents from the plaintiff's personal files. Likewise, the brief which plaintiff has submitted does not comply in any respect with the form and contents of briefs as required by supreme court rules 341 through 344.
Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, a motion for a pre-trial conference. Plaintiff has not responded to the motion.
UPON CONSIDERATION, the court concludes that the brief filled by appellant is grossly insufficient under supreme court rules. A litigant appearing pro se in the appellate court is obligated to follow the same rules as a litigant represented by counsel. (Bohanan v. Schwartz (1974), 21 IL. app 3d 149, 315 ne. 2d 316) Plaintiff's failure to file a coherent brief renders review impossible.
ACCORDINGLY, the motion to dismiss the appeal is allowed.
Appeal DISMISSED.
ENTERED: November 5, 1993
BY ORDER OF THE COURT CONSISTING OF THE PANEL OF : John T. McCullough/ Carl A. Lund/ Robert J. Steigmann