Jackie Osborne v. Rocket Mortgage, LLC, et al.

Whether a federal appellate court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction when extraordinary circumstances—including delayed notice of judgment, medical incapacity, and withheld court mail—prevented a timely filing.

Whether dismissal of a civil rights and RICO complaint with prejudice at the pleading stage violates Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) when the plaintiff was denied a meaningful opportunity to amend the complaint.

Whether federal courts violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when procedural barriers prevent a pro se litigant from presenting claims involving fraud, conspiracy, and unlawful deprivation of property without compensation.

Whether dismissal of a complaint alleging fraud, conspiracy, and racketeering activity without granting leave to amend violates the liberal amendment policy of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a).

Whether coordinated misconduct among mortgage lenders, title companies, and real estate actors involving fraudulent title documentation and concealment of material facts may constitute a pattern of racketeering activity under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. §1962.

Whether federal courts may apply procedural rules in a manner that prevents any court from reaching the merits of a litigant’s claims when the litigant alleges delayed notice of judgment, extraordinary circumstances, and newly discovered evidence. Federal procedural rules serve important purposes in ensuring orderly litigation. However, those rules must not be applied in a manner that prevents any court from reaching the merits of a litigant’s claims when extraordinary circumstances are alleged. Petitioner brought a civil action alleging fraud, conspiracy, and unlawful deprivation of property arising from a real estate transaction involving her home located at 155 Old Highway 24 in Sumrail, Mississippi. The district court dismissed the complaint at the pleading stage without granting leave to amend. Petitioner later sought relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) based on newly discovered evidence and extraordinary circumstances including delayed receipt of court orders and medical incapacity. When Petitioner attempted to seek appellate review, the court of appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction after concluding that the notice of appeal was untimely. The question presented is:

Whether federal courts may apply procedural rules in a manner that prevents any court from reaching the merits of a litigant’s claims when the litigant alleges delayed notice of judgment, extraordinary circumstances affecting the ability to meet filing deadlines, and newly discovered evidence supporting claims involving fraud and deprivation of property rights without compensation.