Bakambia v. Schnell

Background

Marc Amouri Bakambia brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against state officials for violating constitutional rights. He alleged that officials violated his Eighth Amendment right to be protected from cruel and unusual punishment and discriminated against him based on his custodial status and national origin, violating the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

The claims arose from two incidents at MCF-Rush City in May 2019. On May 20, Bakambia fought with inmates J.B., Z.N., and C.W. During the fight, Bakambia lifted J.B. over a railing toward the level below. Prison staff used chemical irritant and ordered the inmates to stop. Staff placed Bakambia, J.B., Z.N., and C.W. in different sections of the segregation unit, but Bakambia and C.W. were placed in the same wing, separated by several cells. The record stated that staff did not know of animosity between the inmates and that the incident created urgency and confusion.

On May 21, Bakambia and C.W. participated in recreation at the same time. C.W. and two other inmates approached Bakambia from behind, and two of them punched him. The third inmate fought with another inmate. Prison staff responded.

Bakambia was charged with several rule violations arising from the May 20 incident. He accepted a waiver offer and received concurrent segregation terms for fighting, inmate assault, attempted inmate assault with bodily harm, and attempted homicide. J.B., Z.N., and C.W. also received disciplinary penalties.

Although Bakambia sued some defendants in both their official and individual capacities, the court considered only the individual-capacity claims because Bakambia made no official-capacity arguments.

Failure-to-Protect Claim

The court applied the Eighth Amendment standard for failure to protect an incarcerated person from attacks by other inmates. Bakambia had to show both that he faced a substantial risk of serious harm and that each official knew about and recklessly disregarded that risk. Negligence or what an official should have known was not enough.

The court rejected defendants’ argument that placing Bakambia and C.W. in the same segregation unit could not create a substantial risk because staff controlled movement. The May 21 attack showed that fights could occur in segregation. The court also accepted, for purposes of summary judgment, Bakambia’s statement that he did not know C.W. was in the same unit before the attack.

Nevertheless, the court ruled that Bakambia had not presented sufficient evidence of a substantial risk of serious harm from C.W.’s placement in the same unit. The record did not show a prior history of conflict or violent attacks among the inmates, a similar earlier incident in the segregation unit, or a continuing threat known to prison officials.

The court separately considered the evidence concerning Scott Maki, Paul Gammel, Kenneth Peterson, Tyler Nelson, and David Schmitt. It concluded that the evidence did not allow a reasonable factfinder to determine that any of them knew of and recklessly disregarded a substantial risk to Bakambia’s safety. The court therefore granted defendants’ motion as to the failure-to-protect claim.

Equal-Protection Claim

The court also granted defendants’ motion on Bakambia’s equal-protection claim. It ruled that custodial status was not an immutable characteristic protected by the Equal Protection Clause and that Bakambia provided no evidence that inmates of another race or national origin received better treatment or that any defendant acted with discriminatory motivation.

The court found that Bakambia had not shown he was similarly situated to Tyler Wicklund or Anthony Bowker, whom he cited as comparators. It also rejected his challenge to being the only inmate charged with attempted homicide after the May 20 fight. The court concluded that only Bakambia threw J.B. over the railing, an act that could have caused J.B.’s death, and that J.B.’s lack of injury did not determine whether the charge was justified.

The court also stated that its review of the surveillance video supported defendants’ description of the events and that Bakambia’s account that he merely pushed J.B. was an inaccurate characterization of the evidence. The court concluded that the disputes Bakambia identified did not establish a constitutional violation.

Defendants Without Personal Involvement

The court granted the motion as to Paul P. Schnell, Vicki Janssen, Deneen Clemons, Jesse Pugh, Branden Tatum, Gary Peterson, and Erik Rasmussen. The record did not show that these defendants were personally involved in the May 20 or May 21 events. The court also concluded that later complaints, requests, comments, and interactions did not establish constitutional violations under the claims presented.

Disposition

The court granted defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. It ordered that the matter be dismissed with prejudice. The court denied Bakambia’s letter request concerning a fellow inmate’s declaration as moot because the proposed evidence would not materially affect the claims. The court stated that it did not need to decide qualified immunity because Bakambia had not established his constitutional claims, although it indicated that qualified immunity was likely available to all defendants.