Rushing v. HealthPartners et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Marcus Rushing, 	Civ. No. 25-2001 (PAM/EMB)
Plaintiff,
v. 	ORDER
McGaw Medial Center of
Northwestern University,
Wood County Hospital,
Wood Health Company, LLC,
and Unity Point Health,
Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Marcus Rushing’s Motion for
Relief from Judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). 	(Mot. (Docket
No. 55).) 	On October 1, 2025, the Court dismissed this case for failure to state a claim.
(Docket No. 41.) 	Rushing asks the Court to vacate its Order dismissing the case and
“reinstate” his case. (Docket No. 55 at 2.)
In relevant part, Rule 60(b) explains that “the court may relieve a party . . . from a
final 	judgment, 	order, 	or 	proceeding 	for . . . (1) 	mistake, 	inadvertence, 	surprise, 	or
excusable neglect . . . or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.” 	Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
In general, “Rule 60(b) provides for extraordinary relief which may be granted only upon
an adequate showing of exceptional circumstances.” Atkinson v. Prudential Prop. Co., 43
F.3d 367, 371 (8th Cir. 1994) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
CASE 0:25-cv-02001-PAM-EMB Doc. 58 Filed 03/05/26 Page 1 of 2

2
First, Rushing seeks relief under Rule 60(b)(1), claiming that the Court determined
that “the dismissal was based on the existence of a prior dismissal in another federal case.”
(Mot. at 2.) He is mistaken. The Court’s previous Order does not mention any such case,
much less list it as the reason for the dismissal of this action. This argument fails.
Second, Rushing argues that “relief under Rule 60(b)(6) is warranted because the
dismissal is a fundamental miscarriage of justice and because extraordinary circumstances
exist that warrant relief.” (Id.) Rushing fails to identify any facts supporting his claim of
a miscarriage of justice or articulate any extraordinary circumstance. Rushing also asserts
that the Court’s previous Order “permanently” prevents his access to the courts. (Id.) This
allegation is erroneous. The Court dismissed Rushing’s case without prejudice, and in no
way curtailed his future court access.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. 	Plaintiff Marcus Rushing’s Motion for Relief from Judgment (Docket
No. 55) is DENIED; and
2. 	Plaintiff’s Motion for Electronic Filing Access (Docket No. 56) is DENIED
as moot.
Dated: March 5, 2026 	s/ Paul A. Magnuson
Paul A. Magnuson
United States District Court Judge
CASE 0:25-cv-02001-PAM-EMB Doc. 58 Filed 03/05/26 Page 2 of 2