Bakambia v. Schnell

Background

The order addressed several nondispositive matters raised by Marc Amouri Bakambia. The opinion states that Bakambia was incarcerated and litigating without a lawyer. The underlying case included claims concerning medical treatment and other conduct, but this order addressed discovery and other case-management issues rather than deciding the underlying claims.

Blood-draw allegations

Bakambia alleged that a poorly performed blood draw damaged a vein and was intentionally mishandled to interfere with his lawsuit. The court declined to address those allegations because the blood draw occurred after the events in the operative amended complaint, and the court had not granted permission to add those claims. The court stated that it would not address the issues further based on Bakambia’s letter and declarations.

Deposition request

Bakambia sought permission to take a written or oral deposition of Dr. Jennifer Boklewski, who had treated him in an emergency room after he lost consciousness. The court denied the motion because Bakambia did not adequately explain what he expected to learn from the deposition or why it was proportional to the needs of the case. The court also rejected his related request to delay consideration of a summary-judgment motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d), which allows a party to seek more time for discovery when specified additional facts are needed to oppose summary judgment.

Filing-fee motion

Bakambia asked the court to transfer any excess filing-fee payments from another case to this case and to direct future deductions from his prison trust account appropriately. The court stated that $350 had been applied to the other case and $195.79 to this case, for total payments of $545.79. Because any amount above the $350 fee in the other case had already been applied across the two cases, the court found the issue moot and denied the motion. The court stated that Bakambia could raise the issue later if it appeared he had been charged more than the required fees.

Request to delay summary judgment and motion to unseal

The Centurion Defendants had filed a summary-judgment motion before discovery closed. Bakambia asked the court to delay ruling until he received discovery responses and completed a deposition. The court denied the request because discovery had concluded, Bakambia had had time to pursue discovery and file motions to compel, and the amended complaint by itself could not establish a genuine factual dispute under Rule 56. The court stated that it would issue a briefing order allowing Bakambia time to oppose summary judgment.

Bakambia also objected to the filing under seal of the memorandum supporting the Centurion Defendants’ summary-judgment motion. The court found no fault with filing the material under seal because the case involved medical conditions and sensitive information.

Fourth motion to compel

The court denied Bakambia’s Fourth Motion to Compel in each respect discussed. It found that the Centurion Defendants had complied with an earlier order concerning materials related to complaints to the Medical Board, and that the Department of Corrections defendants had either produced the required case-management materials or represented that requested recordings and notes did not exist. The court also denied requests concerning Minnesota Government Data Practices Act requests because the amended complaint did not include a claim seeking enforcement of that state law. It denied requests concerning alleged interference with access to court, communications with an embassy, and phone calls because those matters were unrelated to the conduct alleged in the amended complaint. The court further found no good cause to expand the discovery limits in the scheduling order.

Fifth motion to compel

The court denied Bakambia’s Fifth Motion to Compel in all respects except one. It denied requests concerning the verification of interrogatory answers, alleged inconsistencies, prison railing gaps, a detoxification policy, urinalysis, neutropenia, requests for admissions, and several interrogatories directed to the Department of Corrections defendants. The court generally concluded that the responses were adequate, that some requests sought information not asked for, or that disagreement with a denial was not a basis to require a different answer.

The court granted the motion as to a contention interrogatory asking the Department of Corrections defendants to explain the basis for their “unclean hands” defense. A contention interrogatory asks a party to identify the facts supporting a claim or defense. The court found that the defendants’ earlier response was appropriate while discovery continued, but that discovery had ended and a supplemental response was required. The court ordered supplementation by the order if the defendants had not already provided it.

Appointment of counsel

Bakambia asked the court to reconsider its earlier denial of his request for appointment of counsel, citing his inability to afford counsel, the complexity of the case, limited law-library access, and difficulties caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Judge Menendez denied the motion because the circumstances and analysis from the earlier order had not changed.

Disposition

Judge Menendez concluded that Bakambia’s motions to compel were denied in all respects except for the request concerning the unclean-hands contention interrogatory, which was granted. The court also denied the other motions addressed in the order, including the motion to stay consideration of summary judgment. The order did not decide the merits of Bakambia’s underlying claims or the Centurion Defendants’ summary-judgment motion.