Rushing v. West St. Paul Police Department
Marcus Rushing v. West St. Paul Police Department; Isabelle Lalor, Officer, Badge #24R45, individually and in official capacity; and Other TBD Officers, individually and in official capacity
- Elizabeth Cowan Wright
- 0:26-cv-01846
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Marcus Rushing v. West St. Paul Police Department, Judge Wright recommended dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute and denial of pending motions as moot.
Marcus Rushing and the defendants; if adopted, the recommendation would end this action without prejudice and would deny Rushing’s pending motions as moot.
What happened
In Marcus Rushing v. West St. Paul Police Department, the federal court had paused the case because Rushing’s claims involved events also being addressed in an ongoing state criminal proceeding.
Rushing did not meet the deadline to provide an update about that proceeding and had also failed to respond to an earlier order. The report says there was little reason to believe he intended to continue the lawsuit.
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright recommended dismissing the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute and denying Rushing’s pending motions as moot. The recommendation is not yet a final district-court order, and the parties may file objections.
The detailed version
- Rushing v. West St. Paul Police Department · No. 0:26-cv-01846
- Elizabeth Cowan Wright
- Aug. 20, 2026
Background
The court had previously stayed, or paused, the case because the events involved in Rushing’s lawsuit were also the subject of a state criminal proceeding against him. The report states that deciding Rushing’s claims while that proceeding continued would interfere with the state case.
When the stay was entered, Rushing was ordered to provide a status update about the state proceeding by August 14, 2026. He was warned that failing to do so could lead to a recommendation that the case be dismissed for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to take the steps needed to continue a lawsuit. Rushing also did not respond to an earlier order directing him to explain why the case should not be stayed.
The report notes that the state-court docket showed Rushing failed to appear for a hearing on April 29, 2026, after which an arrest warrant was issued. According to the report, the state prosecution had remained inactive for more than three months and had not moved closer to a conclusion.
Recommendation
The magistrate judge recommended that the action be dismissed without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. “Without prejudice” means the recommendation does not state that refiling is permanently barred. The judge also recommended that Rushing’s pending motions, listed as docket entries 2, 4, and 5, be denied as moot, meaning the report considered them no longer requiring a decision because of the recommended dismissal.
This document is a report and recommendation, not a final order or judgment of the District Court. The notice states that a party may file specific written objections within 14 days after being served. It also states that the report is not directly appealable to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.