Keita v. Huckell
Mamady Kalifa Keita v. Scott Huckell, Matthew Russell, Jonanthan C. Peterson, Randy Erdman, Jason Oetterer, and Kenneth Peterson, all in their individual capacities
- Bullard
- 0:24-cv-00598
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 36
In Keita v. Huckell, Magistrate Judge Bullard recommended summary judgment for defendants on Keita’s constitutional claims.
Mamady Kalifa Keita and the Minnesota Department of Corrections employees he sued in their individual capacities. The recommendation, if adopted, would resolve Keita’s claims in the defendants’ favor.
What happened
Mamady Kalifa Keita, who represented himself, sued Minnesota Department of Corrections employees under a civil-rights law, claiming that prison officials violated his constitutional rights during incidents at Minnesota Correctional Facility–Rush City. He challenged the temporary loss of his Qur’an and prayer mat, the use of chemical irritant and restraints, an injury to his finger, prison conditions, and disciplinary proceedings.
The recommended decision concludes that no reasonable jury could find a constitutional violation. It says the temporary loss of Keita’s religious items did not substantially burden his religious practice; the officers’ use of force was not malicious or sadistic; the defendants were not shown to be responsible for conditions at another prison; and the due-process claims failed because the segregation did not create a protected liberty interest, the extended-incarceration challenge was barred, and Keita waived one hearing. The report also recommends denying Keita’s request for appointed counsel as moot.
Magistrate Judge Elsa M. Bullard recommended granting the defendants’ summary-judgment motion and entering judgment against Keita. Because this is a report and recommendation rather than a final order, the parties may file objections under the stated procedure.
The detailed version
- Keita v. Huckell · No. 0:24-cv-00598
- Bullard
- July 31, 2026
Background
Mamady Kalifa Keita, proceeding without a lawyer, brought this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Scott Huckell, Matthew Russell, Jonanthan C. Peterson, Randy Erdman, Jason Oetterer, and Kenneth Peterson, all in their individual capacities. Keita alleged violations of the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments while he was incarcerated at Minnesota Correctional Facility–Rush City.
The case concerned incidents on April 16 and April 19, 2023. On April 16, prison officials placed Keita on Quiet Control Status after an emergency medical technician reported that he had exposed himself. That status temporarily removed most of his property, including his Qur’an and prayer mat. Later, after Keita repeatedly refused orders to uncover his cell window and submit to restraints, officers used a targeted chemical irritant, restrained him in a WRAP device, and removed him from the cell. During the restraint process, Keita bit Officer Russell, who punched Keita after being bitten. Keita later pleaded guilty to fourth-degree assault for biting Russell.
On April 19, officers again used chemical irritant after Keita refused orders to uncover his cell window. When Officer Oetterer closed the cell’s book pass, Keita’s finger was injured. Officers placed him in the WRAP, and a nurse arrived about nine minutes after the injury. Keita also challenged prison conditions at Minnesota Correctional Facility–Oak Park Heights, but the report states that the defendants worked at Rush City and that the record did not show their responsibility for those conditions.
Keita also challenged prison disciplinary proceedings. He signed a waiver regarding the April 16 incident in exchange for a specified disciplinary disposition. A hearing later occurred regarding the April 19 incident, resulting in 90 days of segregation and 70 days of extended incarceration. Defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims.
Analysis
First Amendment. The report recommends judgment for defendants on Keita’s claim that temporarily confiscating his Qur’an and prayer mat violated his right to practice his religion. It concludes that the record showed, at most, roughly 72 hours without those items and did not show that Keita was unable to pray or observe Ramadan without them. The report also states that Keita provided no evidence supporting a substantial burden from alleged Ramadan meal problems. It further concludes that the record did not support a retaliation theory based on the EMT’s report because there was no evidence that Huckell or Erdman pressured the EMT or knew that the report was false.
Eighth Amendment. The report concludes that the record could not support a finding that the defendants used force maliciously or sadistically for the purpose of causing harm. It relies on the officers’ warnings before using chemical irritant, Keita’s repeated refusal to comply, the offer of decontamination spray, the video evidence concerning the WRAP placement, and the circumstances of Russell’s punch after Keita bit him. As to the April 19 finger injury, the report concludes that the record did not show that Oetterer intentionally shut the book pass on Keita’s finger or that the approximately nine-minute delay before medical assessment was unconstitutional.
The report also recommends judgment for defendants on the conditions-of-confinement claim because Keita attributed the conditions to Oak Park Heights and did not provide evidence connecting the Rush City defendants to those conditions.
Fourteenth Amendment. The report concludes that Keita’s disciplinary segregation did not impose an atypical and significant hardship sufficient to create a protected liberty interest. It also concludes that his challenge to the extended incarceration was barred by the rule that generally prevents a civil-rights claim from undermining an outstanding disciplinary result unless that result has been invalidated. The report states that Keita waived his hearing for the April 16 violation and did not provide enough evidence to create a genuine factual dispute. It also finds insufficient support for his apparent claim concerning witnesses at the April 19 hearing.
Disposition
Magistrate Judge Elsa M. Bullard recommended that the defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted and that judgment be entered against Keita. The report separately recommends denying Keita’s request for appointed counsel as moot because, in its view, no triable issues remained. The report is not a final order or judgment, and the notice states that specific written objections may be filed within 14 days after service.
Read the full 36-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.