Bakambia v. Bolin
Marc Amouri Bakambia v. William Bolin, Warden at MCF-Stillwater; Stephen Craane, Medical Director for Centurion; Louis Shicker, Medical Director for Centurion; Andrew Brosted, Security Officer at MCF-Stillwater; Stephen Watt, Security Officer at MCF-Stillwater; Olarinde, Associate Warden of Admin. at MCF-Stillwater; Mercedes Salas, Captain at MCF-Stillwater; Eric Anderson, Security Sergeant at MCF-Stillwater; Morrin William, Registered Nurse at MCF-Stillwater; Ben Petersen, Registered Nurse at MCF-Stillwater; Christine Oberembt, Medical Record Staff at MCF-STW; and Paul Schnell, Commissioner of Corrections, each in their individual and official capacities; Kathy Reid, in her individual capacity; and Alexandria Hart, in her official capacity.
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:25-cv-00461
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 7
In Bakambia v. Bolin, Judge Tostrud dismissed a prisoner's civil-rights lawsuit against prison and medical staff, accepting a magistrate's recommendation to grant the defendants' motions to dismiss.
Prisoners or detainees in state correctional facilities who bring federal civil-rights lawsuits alleging deliberate indifference to serious medical needs or First Amendment retaliation by prison staff or contracted medical providers.
What happened
In Bakambia v. Bolin (No. 25-cv-461), Marc Amouri Bakambia, a prisoner at MCF-Stillwater in Minnesota, sued a warden, correction officers, nurses, medical directors, and other prison and medical staff, claiming they were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs, retaliated against him for filing lawsuits and grievances, and violated other rights. He also sought a preliminary injunction (an emergency court order requiring action before the case is fully resolved). Magistrate Judge Elsa M. Bullard issued a Report and Recommendation on January 27, 2026, recommending that the defendants' motions to dismiss be granted and the whole case be dismissed.
Mr. Bakambia objected to the Report and Recommendation on multiple grounds. He argued that procedural errors were made when the Centurion medical defendants were allowed to refile a memorandum they had mistakenly submitted for the wrong case, and that their motions should not have been joined with the other defendants' motions. He also challenged the factual and legal conclusions on his deliberate indifference claims against the medical director, nurses, and security officers, his First Amendment retaliation claim, and the treatment of his state-law claims. He contended that certain facts were mischaracterized or ignored, and that the court should have kept and decided his state-law claims even after dismissing the federal ones.
Judge Eric C. Tostrud reviewed the objections and overruled all of them, accepting the Report and Recommendation in full. The court found no procedural error in allowing the Centurion defendants to refile their brief or in joining motions, and it agreed that none of Mr. Bakambia's federal claims — including deliberate indifference and First Amendment retaliation — were adequately pleaded. Following Eighth Circuit guidance that state-law claims should not be kept in federal court once all federal claims are dismissed well before trial, Judge Tostrud also declined to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. Both motions to dismiss were granted, the motion for a preliminary injunction was denied as moot, and the entire action was dismissed.
The detailed version
- Bakambia v. Bolin · No. 0:25-cv-00461
- Eric Tostrud
- Mar. 9, 2026
Background
Plaintiff Marc Amouri Bakambia, a prisoner at MCF-Stillwater (Minnesota Correctional Facility–Stillwater), filed this lawsuit pro se (without a lawyer) against a large group of defendants including the prison warden, security officers, medical staff employed by Centurion (a private medical services contractor), and the Minnesota Commissioner of Corrections. The defendants were sued in both their individual and official capacities. Mr. Bakambia alleged, among other things, that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs (a constitutional standard under the Eighth Amendment requiring more than mere negligence), that they retaliated against him for filing lawsuits and grievances in violation of the First Amendment, and that certain defendants violated Minnesota state law. He also moved for a preliminary injunction — an emergency order requiring defendants to take specified action before the case was fully resolved.
Magistrate Judge Elsa M. Bullard issued a Report and Recommendation on January 27, 2026, recommending that the motions to dismiss filed by the DOC (Department of Corrections) Defendants [ECF No. 35] and the Centurion Defendants [ECF No. 78] be granted, the preliminary injunction motion be denied as moot, and the entire action be dismissed. Mr. Bakambia objected [ECF No. 130], triggering de novo review (fresh, independent review) by District Judge Tostrud under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Procedural Objections
Refiling of Centurion brief
Mr. Bakambia objected that Magistrate Judge Bullard abused her discretion by permitting the Centurion Defendants to substitute a corrected memorandum after they had accidentally filed a brief from a different case. Judge Tostrud treated this as an appeal of a non-dispositive (non-case-ending) pretrial order, reviewable only for clear error or violation of law. Applying the strong judicial policy favoring decisions on the merits, the court found no abuse of discretion in allowing the refile, denying a hearing, and crediting the Centurion Defendants' explanation.
Joinder of motions
Mr. Bakambia objected that the Centurion Defendants improperly joined the DOC Defendants' motion and incorporated the DOC's factual background. The court held that allowing defendants to join co-defendants' motions lies within the court's discretion, that consolidating issues made practical and legal sense, and that relying on a co-defendant's stated facts was not improper.
Failure to convert motion to dismiss to summary judgment
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(d), if matters outside the pleadings are presented and not excluded on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss (a motion arguing the complaint fails to state a legally sufficient claim), the court must treat the motion as one for summary judgment. Mr. Bakambia argued the DOC Defendants had done so. Judge Tostrud agreed with Judge Bullard that no extra-pleading materials had been presented, and Mr. Bakambia identified none.
Substantive Objections — Deliberate Indifference Claims
To state a claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs under the Eighth Amendment, a prisoner must allege that a defendant knew of and disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm — mere negligence or even gross negligence is not enough.
Dr. Craane (neurosurgery follow-up and medication)
Mr. Bakambia alleged that Dr. Craane failed to timely schedule a neurosurgery follow-up and delayed processing a prescription. Judge Tostrud, reviewing de novo, found no error in Judge Bullard's conclusion that these allegations did not rise above gross negligence. The complaint itself alleged that Dr. Craane delayed processing the prescription because he was waiting for a physician assistant's transcribed notes — undercutting the claim that the delay was deliberate.
Nurse William
Mr. Bakambia contended that Nurse William's conduct violated his rights. Judge Tostrud, after de novo review, found no error in the conclusion that the allegations did not plausibly allege deliberate indifference.
Officers Watt and Brosted
Mr. Bakambia argued Judge Bullard omitted a key fact — that these officers failed to contact a watch commander. The court found the Report and Recommendation had in fact addressed that allegation and still concluded the complaint failed to adequately plead deliberate indifference.
Facts from other lawsuits
Mr. Bakambia attempted to rely on facts he had alleged in a separate lawsuit but not in this complaint. The court correctly noted that on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion the court considers only the allegations in the complaint before it.
Immunity Arguments
Mr. Bakambia objected that Judge Bullard failed to analyze the DOC Defendants' immunity arguments. Judge Tostrud explained that if immunity succeeded, it would only add another reason to dismiss claims already subject to dismissal; if immunity failed, the claims would still be dismissed on other grounds. Judge Bullard did not err by declining to reach those alternative grounds.
First Amendment Retaliation (Count II)
Count II alleged retaliatory treatment for filing a Section 1983 action (a federal civil-rights lawsuit against state actors) and for filing prison grievances. Judge Bullard treated this as a First Amendment retaliation claim. Mr. Bakambia's objection regarding how the claim was characterized and compared to his separate case (Bakambia v. Ghebre, No. 24-cv-3653) was found to be without merit. Judge Tostrud found no error in how Judge Bullard analyzed or cited the claim.
State-Law Claims and Supplemental Jurisdiction
Mr. Bakambia argued the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction (federal court authority to decide related state-law claims) over his remaining state-law claims after dismissing the federal ones. He also argued Judge Bullard failed to address claims against Defendant Captain Mercedes Salas. The court declined, consistent with Eighth Circuit guidance that district courts should not retain state-law claims when all federal claims are dismissed well before trial. The only claims against Captain Salas arose under Minnesota state law, so the court properly declined to address them.
Disposition
- Mr. Bakambia's objections [ECF No. 130] are OVERRULED.
- The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 125] is ACCEPTED.
- The DOC Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 35] is GRANTED.
- The Centurion Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 78] is GRANTED.
- Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction [ECF No. 23] is DENIED as moot.
- This action is DISMISSED.
The opinion does not specify whether dismissal is with or without prejudice.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.