Curtis v. Progressive Insurance
Devante Curtis v. Progressive Insurance; Hennepin County Medical Center, doing business as Hennepin County Health Care; Brian D. Mahoney, MD, in his official capacity; Zeris Stamatis, MD, in his official capacity; Juan Pablo Sanchez Ramirez, MD, in his official capacity; Sonia Kalirao, MD, in her official capacity; and Bradleigh J. Dornfeld, MD, in his official capacity
- Laura Provinzino
- 0:25-cv-00727
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 14
In Curtis v. Progressive Insurance et al., Judge Provinzino dismissed the entire complaint of pro se plaintiff Devante Curtis without prejudice, finding that his federal civil rights claims against Hennepin County Medical Center failed to state valid claims and that the court lacked jurisdiction over his remaining state-law claims against both the medical defendants and his insurance company.
Pro se plaintiffs who bring civil rights retaliation or discrimination claims against public hospitals or government-employed medical providers without alleging an official policy or custom; plaintiffs suing insurance companies or medical defendants in federal court without establishing diversity of citizenship; and individuals who believe they can bring criminal charges through a civil lawsuit.
What happened
In Curtis v. Progressive Insurance; Hennepin County Medical Center et al., Devante Curtis, representing himself, sued Hennepin County Medical Center and several of its doctors, claiming they intentionally delayed diagnosing him with a traumatic brain injury he suffered in a 2015 car accident, allegedly in retaliation for misconduct complaints he and his mother had made against Hennepin County officials, and in violation of civil rights laws. He also sued his insurance company, Progressive Insurance, claiming it improperly denied his wage-loss claim under Minnesota law. Both sets of defendants moved to have the case thrown out.
The court dismissed Curtis's First Amendment retaliation claim because, even if individual doctors acted wrongly, he never alleged that Hennepin County Medical Center had an official policy, unofficial custom, or inadequate training that caused the retaliation — which is required to hold a public employer liable under federal civil rights law. His discrimination claim under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 also failed because he never identified himself as a member of a protected class based on race, color, or national origin, and made no factual allegations showing he was treated differently from other patients on those grounds. With no valid federal claims remaining, the court found it had no basis to hear the state-law claims either: diversity jurisdiction — which requires parties to be from different states — was unavailable because Curtis and all defendants appeared to be Minnesota residents, and the court declined to exercise its optional authority to hear state claims alongside dismissed federal ones.
Judge Provinzino granted both motions to dismiss and dismissed the entire complaint without prejudice, meaning Curtis is not permanently barred from refiling — he may potentially pursue his state-law claims in Minnesota state court. The court also noted that new claims Curtis raised in his response brief (including fraud allegations) could not be considered because a complaint cannot be amended through a response brief, and that his request for the court to pursue criminal charges was legally impossible since private citizens cannot bring criminal prosecutions.
The detailed version
- Devante Curtis v. Progressive Insurance; Hennepin County Medical Center, doing business as Hennepin County Health Care; Brian D. Mahoney, MD; Zeris Stamatis, MD; Juan Pablo Sanchez Ramirez, MD; Sonia Kalirao, MD; and Bradleigh J. Dornfeld, MD — Case No. 25-cv-727 (LMP/JFD)
- Laura M. Provinzino, United States District Judge
- October 24, 2025
Background
Pro se (self-represented) plaintiff Devante Curtis was in a car accident in August 2015 that caused him to lose consciousness. He sought treatment at Hennepin County Medical Center (HCMC) and was seen by multiple doctors over several years. Curtis alleges that HCMC doctors were aware of or should have detected a traumatic brain injury (TBI) but intentionally delayed his diagnosis. He claims HCMC finally diagnosed him with a TBI in July 2023. Curtis contends the delay was targeted retaliation for misconduct complaints he and his mother made against Hennepin County officials starting in 2013, and also constituted racial or other protected-class discrimination in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He additionally alleged medical malpractice and intentional infliction of emotional distress against the HCMC defendants. Separately, Curtis sued Progressive Insurance for improperly denying his wage-loss claim under Minnesota law (Minn. Stat. § 604.18) after his TBI diagnosis.
Procedural posture
Curtis named the individual HCMC doctors in their 'official capacities' only. The court explained that an official-capacity suit against a public employee is treated as a suit against the employing entity — here, Hennepin County / HCMC — making the individual-doctor claims legally redundant to the HCMC claim. The HCMC defendants and Progressive each filed motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim). Progressive also moved under Rule 12(b)(1) (lack of subject-matter jurisdiction).
First Amendment Retaliation (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
To state a retaliation claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 — the federal statute allowing civil rights claims against government actors — a plaintiff must allege: (1) protected activity; (2) an adverse government action that would deter a person of ordinary firmness; and (3) a causal link between the protected activity and the adverse action. However, to hold a municipal entity (like HCMC) liable under § 1983, a plaintiff must also allege that the constitutional violation resulted from an official municipal policy, an unofficial custom, or a deliberately indifferent failure to train or supervise employees (the so-called 'Monell' requirement, from Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of City of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658 (1978)). The court found that Curtis's complaint focused entirely on the individual doctors' conduct and contained no allegations of any HCMC policy, custom, or training failure. The First Amendment claim was therefore dismissed for failure to state a claim.
Title VI Discrimination
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000d) prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin by entities receiving federal financial assistance. To state a claim, a plaintiff must show membership in a protected class and that they were treated differently because of that membership. Curtis's complaint contained no allegation that he belonged to any protected class under Title VI, and no factual basis showing differential treatment based on race, color, or national origin. The claim was dismissed as legally insufficient (conclusory).
State-Law Claims and Jurisdiction
With both federal claims dismissed, the court assessed whether it could hear Curtis's remaining state-law claims (medical malpractice, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and the Progressive insurance claim under Minnesota law). Diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) requires: (1) an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000; and (2) complete diversity of citizenship, meaning no plaintiff and defendant share the same state of legal residence. Curtis's own complaint identified him and all defendants — including Progressive — as Minnesota residents. Progressive's complaint listing showed a Minnesota address and alleged Minnesota incorporation and principal place of business. Complete diversity was therefore absent based on Curtis's own allegations, and the court could not exercise diversity jurisdiction. Because all federal claims were dismissed before trial, the court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction (its discretionary authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 to hear state claims alongside federal ones), dismissing the state-law claims without prejudice so they may potentially be pursued in Minnesota state court.
New Claims in Response Brief
In his response to the motions to dismiss, Curtis raised new allegations of civil and criminal fraud by the defendants. The court held that a complaint cannot be amended through a response brief and that Curtis had not sought leave of court to amend as required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. The court also noted that private citizens have no legal authority to bring criminal charges — only government prosecutors can do so — so those allegations could not save the complaint.
Disposition: The court:
- GRANTED Progressive's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 12);
- GRANTED the HCMC Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 18);
- DENIED Curtis's Request for a Hearing (ECF No. 6);
- GRANTED Curtis's Request to Dismiss his Application to Proceed without Prepaying Fees (ECF No. 5);
- DISMISSED Curtis's Application to Proceed without Prepaying Fees (ECF No. 2); and
- DISMISSED the Complaint (ECF No. 1) WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Dismissal without prejudice means Curtis is not permanently barred from pursuing these claims; he may potentially refile, including in Minnesota state court for his state-law claims. Note: The court dismissed Defendants Brian D. Mahoney, MD and Sonia Kalirao, MD even though they were not represented by the Hennepin County Attorney's Office, treating the claims against them — as official-capacity claims — as claims against HCMC.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 14-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.