Rushing v. The McGaw Medical Center of Northwestern University
Marcus Rushing v. The McGaw Medical Center of Northwestern University; Wood County Hospital; Wood Health Company, LLC; Independence Health Employer Services, LLC; The Toledo Clinic; Signify Health, Inc.; The Huntington National Bank; Huntington Bancshares Incorporated; The U.S. Bank National Association; The Illinois Department of Human Rights; The Illinois Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission; The State of Illinois Judicial Order Inquiry Board; The Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation; The Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services; Husch Blackwell, LLP; Scott Warner; Julie Garabedian; Roya H. Samarghandi; January Family Law, LLC; Joerika Stitt; Henderson Banks; Al Hofeld, Jr., Esq.; Paul Straus; Michael Forti; Michael Davi; David Haracz; Russell D. Knight; Frumm & Frumm; Taege Law Offices; The Willis Law Firm; Kimberly Dodson; Ramon Martin; Dean Mandros; The Ohio Civil Rights Commission
- John Tunheim
- 0:25-cv-01957
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
In Marcus Rushing v. The McGaw Medical Center of Northwestern University et al., Judge Tunheim dismissed the case without prejudice because the court found it lacked the legal authority (jurisdiction) to hear it, and warned Rushing that repeatedly filing similar lawsuits could result in restrictions on his ability to file new cases.
Marcus Rushing, the plaintiff, who filed this lawsuit without a lawyer against more than thirty defendants. The case is dismissed without prejudice, so Rushing is not permanently barred from refiling, but the court warned that repeated similar filings could lead to restrictions on his ability to file future cases in this district.
What happened
Marcus Rushing v. The McGaw Medical Center of Northwestern University et al. is a federal lawsuit filed by Marcus Rushing in the District of Minnesota against more than thirty defendants, including hospitals, banks, law firms, individual attorneys, and several state government agencies from Illinois and Ohio. Rushing claimed the court had authority to hear the case based on 'diversity jurisdiction,' a rule that allows federal courts to hear disputes between citizens of different states when the amount at stake is large enough.
The court identified at least three reasons why diversity jurisdiction did not apply here. First, both Rushing and one defendant, U.S. Bank National Association, are citizens of Minnesota, which breaks the rule requiring all plaintiffs and defendants to be from different states. Second, Rushing failed to properly identify the home states of members of several limited liability companies and partnerships named as defendants. Third, several defendants are state government agencies, and it is a long-established legal rule that state agencies cannot be parties in a diversity-based federal lawsuit. The court also noted that Rushing had been put on notice of these jurisdictional problems months earlier but never filed a corrected complaint as required by the court's local rules. The court also addressed, in a footnote, Rushing's apparent intent to bring claims under federal civil rights law (42 U.S.C. § 1983) and federal anti-racketeering law (RICO), concluding that those claims would also have failed — the RICO claims lacked adequate factual support, and the § 1983 claim failed because the targeted defendant, McGaw Medical Center of Northwestern University, is not a government actor.
Judge Tunheim dismissed the entire case without prejudice, meaning Rushing is not permanently barred from refiling, but all pending motions were denied as having no further effect. The court also certified that any appeal of this dismissal would not be in good faith, which means that if Rushing asks to appeal without paying court fees, that request will be denied. Finally, the court repeated a warning from another recent case: if Rushing keeps filing lawsuits against the same defendants about the same subject matter, the court may restrict his ability to file new cases in this district without a lawyer or prior court approval.
The detailed version
- Marcus Rushing v. The McGaw Medical Center of Northwestern University et al., Civil No. 25-1957 (JRT/DJF), United States District Court, District of Minnesota
- John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge
- March 4, 2026
Background
Plaintiff Marcus Rushing, proceeding apparently without an attorney (pro se), filed a complaint on May 1, 2025, naming over thirty defendants, including medical institutions, financial institutions, law firms, individual attorneys, and multiple Illinois and Ohio state agencies. Rushing invoked diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 as the sole basis for federal court authority over his claims. Diversity jurisdiction requires 'complete diversity,' meaning every plaintiff must be a citizen of a different state than every defendant, and the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000.
Jurisdictional Defects: The court identified three independent grounds for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction — the court's fundamental legal authority to hear a case:
- Non-diverse parties: Rushing alleged that both he and defendant U.S. Bank National Association are citizens of Minnesota, which destroys complete diversity under 28 U.S.C. §
- 2. Inadequate citizenship pleading: Rushing named several limited liability companies and partnerships without identifying the citizenship of each of their members, which is required because LLCs and partnerships take the citizenship of all their members for jurisdictional purposes.
- State agency defendants: Several defendants are state government agencies. Under settled federal law, a state or state agency cannot be a party to a diversity jurisdiction action. The court cited Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. State of Alabama, 155 U.S. 482, 487 (1894), and Dep't of Fair Emp. & Hous. v. Lucent Techs., Inc., 642 F.3d 728, 737 (9th Cir. 2011).
Opportunity to Cure
The court noted that Rushing had received notice of jurisdictional issues as early as July 2, 2025, when a motion to dismiss was filed (Docket No. 18). Despite having months to do so, Rushing never filed a motion to amend his complaint in compliance with Local Rule 15.1 of the District of Minnesota. The original complaint thus remained the operative pleading.
Federal Claims in Footnote
The court addressed, in a footnote, Rushing's apparent intent to pursue claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (a law allowing suits against government actors for civil rights violations) and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). The court stated that even if Rushing had properly moved to amend, those claims would have been denied: (a) the RICO claims lacked adequate factual specificity to satisfy the heightened pleading standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b); and (b) the § 1983 claim failed because the only defendant against whom Rushing sought § 1983 relief, McGaw Medical Center of Northwestern University, is not a 'state actor,' which is a prerequisite for § 1983 liability under Doe v. North Homes, Inc., 11 F.4th 633, 637 (8th Cir. 2021).
Ruling
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3), which requires dismissal whenever a court determines it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, Judge Tunheim dismissed Rushing's complaint without prejudice (allowing potential refiling if jurisdictional defects can be cured). All pending motions — nine in total (Docket Nos. 11, 18, 41, 44, 47, 50, 68, 69, and 70), including Rushing's own motions and defendants' motions to dismiss — were denied as moot (having no further legal effect given the dismissal).
Appeal Certification
The court certified, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal of this dismissal would not be taken in good faith. This certification means that if Rushing seeks to appeal without paying filing fees (in forma pauperis status), that request will be denied.
Filing Restriction Warning
The court repeated a warning previously issued in a related case, Rushing v. McGaw Medical Center of Northwestern University, Civ. No. 25-3909 (D. Minn. Feb. 11, 2026): if Rushing continues to file lawsuits against the same defendants involving essentially the same subject matter, the court may impose restrictions requiring him to obtain counsel or receive advance authorization from a judicial officer before initiating new litigation in the District of Minnesota.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.