Bakambia v. Hart
Marc Amouri Bakambia v. Alexandria Hart, Michael Oliveras, and Christine Oberembt
- Dulce Foster
- 0:24-cv-03653
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Bakambia v. Hart, Magistrate Judge Foster denied plaintiff Marc Amouri Bakambia's motion to strike a defendant's declaration and for sanctions over alleged factual errors.
Parties in civil litigation who file motions to strike sworn declarations or seek sanctions under Rule 56(h) or Rule 11, particularly those who challenge factual errors in an opponent's affidavit. Pro se litigants should note the strict procedural requirement to provide 21 days' advance notice before filing a Rule 11 sanctions motion.
What happened
In Bakambia v. Hart, No. 24-cv-3653, plaintiff Marc Amouri Bakambia sued defendants Alexandria Hart, Michael Oliveras, and Christine Oberembt. While defendants' motion for summary judgment was pending, Mr. Bakambia filed a motion to strike a declaration submitted by defendant Oliveras and to impose sanctions, arguing that the declaration contained deliberate lies — specifically a wrong year (2023 instead of 2024) and a disputed detail about what time of day Mr. Bakambia was released from segregation.
The court examined whether the alleged errors in Oliveras's declaration were made in bad faith, as required to justify sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(h), which allows courts to sanction a party who submits a sworn statement in bad faith or solely to cause delay. The court found that the year discrepancy appeared to be a clerical mistake, not an intentional misrepresentation. As to the disputed release time, the court noted that a witness's memory can be refreshed through documents during litigation, so the fact that Oliveras earlier said he could not remember the events does not mean his later declaration was false. The court also found that neither inconsistency was material to the summary judgment ruling.
Magistrate Judge Foster denied the motion in its entirety. The request for sanctions under Rule 11 — a separate court rule that allows sanctions for filings made in bad faith — was also denied, both because the record did not support it and because Mr. Bakambia failed to follow a required procedural step: giving the opposing party a 21-day window to correct or withdraw the challenged filing before bringing the motion to court.
The detailed version
- Bakambia v. Hart · No. 0:24-cv-03653
- Dulce J. Foster
- Sept. 4, 2026
Background
Plaintiff Marc Amouri Bakambia is engaged in civil litigation against defendants Alexandria Hart, Michael Oliveras, and Christine Oberembt. While defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (a motion asking the court to rule in their favor without a full trial, on the grounds that no genuine factual dispute exists) was pending, defendant Oliveras filed two declarations in support of that motion: a First Declaration filed July 6, 2026, and a Second Declaration filed August 17, 2026 with defendants' reply memorandum.
The Motion
Mr. Bakambia filed a Motion to Strike the First Declaration of defendant Oliveras pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(h) and for sanctions pursuant to Rule 11. He raised two main challenges:
1. Year error: The First Declaration and the summary judgment motion described events involving Oliveras as occurring in June 2023, when they actually occurred in June 2024. Oliveras's Second Declaration acknowledged this as a clerical error. Mr. Bakambia argued it was a deliberate misrepresentation.
2. Release time discrepancy: The First Declaration stated Mr. Bakambia was released from segregation on the morning of June 11, 2024. Mr. Bakambia, with documentary support, asserted the release occurred in the afternoon. He also noted that Oliveras previously stated in discovery responses that he did not remember the events, yet later described them in detail in the First Declaration.
Legal Standards Applied
Rule 56(h) Sanctions Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(h) permits the court to order a party who submits an affidavit (a sworn written statement) in bad faith or solely for delay to pay the opposing party's reasonable expenses. Courts have described such sanctions as appropriate only in "rare" circumstances and only for conduct that is "particularly egregious." Bad faith intent — not merely negligence or mistake — is required.
Rule 11 Sanctions Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 allows courts to sanction parties for filings made for improper purposes or containing inaccurate factual representations. Before filing a Rule 11 motion, the moving party must serve the motion on the opposing party and allow 21 days for the challenged filing to be withdrawn or corrected (the "safe harbor" provision). Only if the opposing party fails to correct the filing within those 21 days may the motion actually be filed with the court. Compliance with this procedural step is strictly required under Eighth Circuit precedent.
Court's Analysis
Rule 56(h) The court found that the evidence did not support a finding of bad faith. As to the year error, the court characterized it as, at most, negligence or mistake — not intentional falsehood. As to the release time, the court explained that a witness's recollection can legitimately be refreshed upon reviewing documents in the course of litigation, so Oliveras's earlier inability to recall events does not make his later, more detailed account sanctionable. The court noted that the prior inconsistency might be useful fodder for cross-examination, but does not support sanctions.
The court also concluded that neither challenged inconsistency was material, relying on the principle that Rule 56(h) sanctions are inappropriate unless the court actually relied on the false affidavit in deciding the summary judgment motion. The court stated it did not rely on either the "2023" date or the morning/afternoon release time in its concurrently filed Report and Recommendation on the summary judgment motion.
Rule 11 The court denied Rule 11 sanctions on two independent grounds: (1) the evidentiary record did not support them; and (2) Mr. Bakambia failed to comply with the 21-day safe harbor provision — he did not give defendants the required advance notice before filing the motion.
Disposition
Plaintiff's Motion to Strike the Declaration of Defendant Oliveras pursuant to Rule 56(h) and for sanctions pursuant to Rule 11 (ECF No. 244) is DENIED.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.