Skip to main content

No. 25-7653October Term 2025Petition Pending

Docket 25-7653October Term 2025 (2025–2026)

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

Jackie Osborne asks the Supreme Court to review a Fifth Circuit decision dismissing her appeal while she was representing herself.

Case status

Current stage
Petition Pending
Latest event
Petition pending
Decision timing
No decision timeline until the Court agrees to hear the case.
Petition PendingNot granted
ArgumentsNot scheduled
Decision ReleasedNot scheduled
What it's about

Jackie Osborne asks the Supreme Court to review a Fifth Circuit decision dismissing her appeal while she was representing herself. The petition concerns the circumstances in which a federal appeals court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s appeal.

Question presented

1. 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? 2. 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? 3. 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? 4. 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)? 5. 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? 6. 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? 7. 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?

Case path

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit / Petition pending

Area

Petition for review pending

Briefing

What it's about

Jackie Osborne asks the Supreme Court to review the Fifth Circuit's dismissal of her appeal while she represented herself. She says delayed notice, medical incapacity, and withheld court mail prevented a timely filing and that she was denied a meaningful chance to amend her civil complaint.

Argument

The case has not been scheduled for oral argument. Osborne seeks review of the Fifth Circuit's jurisdictional dismissal and argues that extraordinary circumstances should have allowed her appeal and amendment of her complaint.

Impact

The case concerns whether procedural deadlines can block self-represented people from getting a court to consider claims they say involve fraud and property loss. For example, it could affect an appellant who misses a deadline after receiving a judgment late.

What is at stake in Osborne v. Rocket Mortgage?

The petition asks whether extraordinary circumstances can excuse an untimely appeal by a self-represented litigant. It also challenges dismissal without a meaningful opportunity to amend.

Who could be affected by this case?

Self-represented federal court litigants who receive late notice of a judgment or face serious barriers to meeting filing deadlines could be affected.

What happens next in Osborne v. Rocket Mortgage?

The Supreme Court may schedule oral argument or take another scheduling action. No decision timing has been set.

Grounding

Grounding
Primary materials plus reporting.
Note
Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.
Checked
Sep 3, 2026
Primary materials5
Context reporting3