Rushing v. McGaw Medical Center of Northwestern University, The et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
MARCUS RUSHING,
Plaintiff,
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
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;
RACHEL HAZELET; and STEVEN SEASLY,
Defendants.
Civil No. 25-1957 (JRT/DJF)
ORDER
CASE 0:25-cv-01957-JRT-DJF Doc. 74 Filed 03/04/26 Page 1 of 5

2
ORDER
Under Rule 8(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must
contain “a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction.” 	The
complaint filed by Plaintiff Marcus Rushing in this matter alleges that the Court has
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 due to the diversity of citizenship of the parties.
(See Complaint at 6, May 1, 2025, Docket No. 1.) 	The Court concludes it lacks such
jurisdiction for at least three reasons. First, Rushing’s Complaint alleges that both he and
one of the defendants to this action, defendant U.S. Bank National Association, are
citizens of Minnesota. (See id. at 6-7.) Second, Rushing has not adequately pleaded the
citizenship of several other defendants—for example, Rushing names various limited
liability companies and partnerships without identifying the citizenship of the the
members of those organizations. 	And third, the presence of various state agencies as
defendants to this action thwarts complete diversity of citizenship as a basis for the
Court’s jurisdiction, regardless of whether any of the other defendants might be, like
Rushing, a citizen of Minnesota. See Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. State of Alabama, 155
U.S. 482, 487 (1894) (“it is well settled that a suit between a state and a citizen . . . of
another state is not between citizens of different states” for the purposes of diversity
jurisdiction); Dep't of Fair Emp. & Hous. v. Lucent Techs., Inc., 642 F.3d 728, 737 (9 th Cir.
2011) (noting that “neither a state nor a state agency [can] be a party to a diversity
action”) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
CASE 0:25-cv-01957-JRT-DJF Doc. 74 Filed 03/04/26 Page 2 of 5

3
“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the
court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Rushing received notice months
ago of jurisdictional questions regarding his Complaint. (See Mot. Dismiss, Jul. 2, 2025,
Docket No. 18.) He has now had ample opportunity to correct any jurisdictional defects
by filing a motion to amend his complaint and a proposed amended complaint adequately
establishing the Court’s jurisdiction over this action. 	Rushing has not filed any such
motion.1 Rushing’s initial Complaint remains the operative pleading in this matter, and
that document fails to establish the Court’s jurisdiction over this action.
Accordingly, 	this 	matter 	will 	be 	dismissed 	without 	prejudice 	pursuant 	to
Rule 12(h)(3). 	Each pending motion—including Rushing’s various motions and any
pending motions to dismiss brought by a Defendant—will be denied as moot. 	It is
certified that Rushing cannot appeal from the dismissal of this action in good faith and
that, if Rushing were to request in forma pauperis status on appeal, his request would be
1 Rushing has submitted documents indicating his intent to bring claims under federal law
against certain Defendants, such as claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (see Letter, Ex. 1, Mar.
2, 2026, Docket No. 66-1) and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
(“RICO”) (see Notice, Oct. 15, 2025, Docket No. 45). But Rushing has not moved to amend
his Complaint in compliance with Local Rule 15.1 of this District. Moreover, had Rushing
asked to amend his complaint to include RICO or § 1983 claims, his request would have
been denied. Rushing’s purported RICO claims lack an adequate factual basis to meet the
pleading requirements of Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Rushing’s
§ 1983 claims fail on the basis that the lone defendant against which Rushing has sought
relief under § 1983, defendant McGaw Medical Center of Northwestern University, is not
a “state actor” for purposes of § 1983, see Doe v. North Homes, Inc., 11 F.4th 633, 637 (8 th
Cir. 2021) (“Only a state actor can face § 1983 liability.”).
CASE 0:25-cv-01957-JRT-DJF Doc. 74 Filed 03/04/26 Page 3 of 5

4
denied on that basis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) (“An appeal may not be taken in forma
pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.”).
Finally, the Court repeats the warning given to Rushing in another of the several
cases he has filed recently in this District: “[R]epeatedly filing lawsuits against the same
defendants about essentially the same subject matter will result in the imposition of
restrictions on his ability to initiate new litigation in this District absent representation by
counsel or the advance authorization of a judicial officer of this District.” See Rushing v.
McGaw Medical Center of Northwestern University, Civ. No. 25-3909, Docket No. 13 at 15
(D. Minn. Feb. 11, 2026).
Based on the foregoing, and on all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. 	Rushing’s Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject-
matter jurisdiction.
2. 	Each pending motion (Docket Nos. [11], [18], [41], [44], [47], [50], [68], [69],
& [70]) is DENIED as moot.
3. 	It is certified that an appeal cannot be taken in good faith from the dismissal
of this matter and that any application to proceed in forma pauperis on
appeal by plaintiff Marcus Rushing will be denied on that basis.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
CASE 0:25-cv-01957-JRT-DJF Doc. 74 Filed 03/04/26 Page 4 of 5

5
Dated: March 4, 2026
at Minneapolis, Minnesota.
_____/s/ John R. Tunheim_____
JOHN R. TUNHEIM
Judge
United States District Court
CASE 0:25-cv-01957-JRT-DJF Doc. 74 Filed 03/04/26 Page 5 of 5