govinfo:USCOURTS-ilsd-3_26-cv-00632-0

Page 1 of 4 
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 
 
DAWN HEIMBURGER, 
 
 Plaintiff, 
 
v. 
 
FEDERAL BUREAU OF 
INVESTIGATION, et al., 
 
 D e f e n d a n t s . 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 
 
ROSENSTENGEL, District Judge: 
 Plaintiff Dawn Heimburger, proceeding pro se , filed this action on May 12, 2026, 
against 13 defendants including the Federal Bure au of Investigation (FBI), the United States 
Air Force, and President Donald Trump. (Doc . 1). The case is now before the Court on 
Heimburger’s Motion to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 2) 
and for preliminary review of the Complaint. 
 Normally, the fee for filing a complaint and opening a civil case is $405.00. Under 
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), however, an indigent party may commence a federal court action 
without prepaying the required costs and fees by submitting an affidavit asserting her 
inability to pay the fees, the nature of the action, and the affiant’s belief that she is entitled to 
redress. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Destitution is not required to proceed without prepaying fees 
or costs; an affidavit demonstrating that the plaintiff cannot, because of her poverty, provide 
herself with the necessities of life is sufficient. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 
331, 339–40 (1948). 
The Court is satisfied from Heimburger’s affidavit (Doc. 2) that she is indigent. Page ID
#<pageID>
Page 2 of 4 
 
Heimburger reports that she is a self-employed writer and made less than $2,500 per month 
in 2025. She has less than $500 in a bank accoun t, owns no items of value, and has about 
$100,000 in credit card debt in addition to he r monthly bills. Based on this financial 
information, the Court finds that Heimburger is indigent under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). 
Under § 1915(e)(2), the Court must now screen Heimburger’s complaint and dismiss 
the complaint if it is clearly frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim, or is a claim for money 
damages against an immune defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also Hoskins v. Poelstra, 
320 F.3d 761, 763 (7th Cir. 2003) (“District judges ha ve ample authority to dismiss frivolous 
or transparently defective suits spontaneousl y, and thus save everyone time and legal 
expense.”). 
The undersigned is mindful that courts construe pro se claims generously. Buechel v. 
United States , 746 F.3d 753, 758 (7th Cir. 2014). The Court accepts the plaintiff’s factual 
allegations as true, liberally construing them in the plaintiff’s favor. Turley v. Rednour , 729 
F.3d 645 (7th Cir. 2013). Concluso ry statements and labels, however, are not enough. The 
complaint must allege enough facts to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” 
Alexander v. United States , 721 F.3d 418, 421 (7th Cir. 2013). “A claim has facial plausibility 
when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable 
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 
662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007)). “Threadbare 
recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not 
suffice.” Id. 
In other words, “a plaintiff must do better than putting a few words on paper that, in 
the hands of an imaginative reader, might suggest that something has happened to her that Page ID
#<pageID>
Page 3 of 4 
 
might be redressed by the law.” Swanson v. Citibank, N.A. , 614 F.3d 400, 403 (7th Cir. 2010). 
Instead, “the plaintiff must give enough details about the subject-matter of the case to present 
a story that holds together.” Id. at 404. 
Upon reviewing Heimburger’s Complaint, the Court finds that it fails to state a claim. 
Heimburger has named the following individuals and agencies as Defendants: the FBI, Kash 
Patel, Former SAIC Cynthia Nett rour aka Annette Pratt, St. Clair County Sheriff’s Office, 
United States Air Force, TJ Collins, McConnell Air Force Base, Scott Air Force Base, Former 
General Kenneth Wisbach, Former President Donald Trump, O’Fallon, IL Police Department, 
Tracy Pratt Diel, and Kendra Pratt Koonce. Heimburger alleges that the FBI, through its 
agents including Kash Patel and Former SAIC Cynthia Nettrour, engaged in a pattern of 
harassment and intimidation against her that may have been influenced by “Former 
President” Donald Trump’s policies. (Doc. 1 ¶¶ 19, 24). She also claims that the St. Clair 
County Sheriff’s Office and the O’Fallon, IL Police Department failed to protect her from 
these unlawful actions despite her repeated requests for assistance. ( Id. ¶ 20). However, 
Heimburger does not allege any facts explaini ng what these Defendants did to harass or 
intimidate her. Heimburger further alleges th at the U.S. Air Force (through TJ Collins), 
McConnell Air Force Base, and Scott Air Force Base have been involved in actions and 
activities that have contributed to her distress and that Former General Wisbach failed to 
intervene. (Id. ¶¶ 21-23).
 But, again, Heimburger does not state any facts about those actions 
or activities. In fact, the Complaint include s “[insert specific actions or incidents]”—
indicating that Heimburger may have used some form of template complaint. 
The lack of detail continues in Heimburger ’s claims for relief, where she alleges a 
violation of her civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, intentional infliction of emotional distress, Page ID
#<pageID>
Page 4 of 4
and negligence. Each count recites the elements of the cause of action without providing any 
facts in support. For example, in her intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, 
Heimburger states that the “conduct of th e Defendants was extreme and outrageous, and 
they acted with the intent to cause, or with reckless disregard for the probability of causing, 
emotional distress to Plaintiff.” ( Id. ¶ 30). As a result, she claims she has suffered severe 
emotional distress and is entitled to damages. ( Id. ¶ 31). Under Iqbal, these allegations are 
insufficient to state a claim for relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (“While legal conclusions can 
provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations.”).
Because Heimburger has failed to state a claim, the Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED 
without prejudice . Heimburger is GRANTED leave to file an Amended Complaint that 
provides the factual details required to state a claim on or before July 15, 2026. 
Heimburger’s Motion to Proceed in Distric t Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs 
(Doc. 2) is GRANTED. 
Heimburger is ADVISED that she is under a continuing obligation to keep the Clerk 
of Court and each opposing party informed of any change in her address; the Court will not 
independently investigate her whereabouts. This shall be done in writing and not later than 
14 days after a change in address occurs. Failure to comply with this order will cause a delay 
in the transmission of court documents and may result in dismissal of this action for want of 
prosecution. See F
ED.R .C IV. P. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 15, 2026
____________________________
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
United States District Judge Page ID
#<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight