Bakambia v. Bolin et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Marc Amouri Bakambia,
Plaintiff,
v.
William Bolin in his individual and
official capacities, Stephen Craane
in his individual and official
capacities, Louis Shicker in his
individual and official capacities,
Andrew Brosted in his individual
and official capacities, Stephen
Watt in his individual and official
capacities, Ajibola Olarinde in her
individual and official capacities,
Mercedes Salas in her individual
and official capacities, Kathy Reid,
in her individual capacity,
Alexandria Hart, in her official
capacity, Eric Anderson in his
individual and official capacities,
Morrin William in his individual
and official capacities, Ben Petersen
in his individual and official
capacities, Christine Oberembt in
her individual and official
capacities, and Paul Schnell in his
individual and official capacities,
Defendants.
Case No. 25-cv-461 (ECT/EMB)
REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Marc Amouri Bakambia is a state prisoner proceeding pro se.
His complaint (Dkt. No. 1) alleges Defendants violated his civil rights by
CASE 0:25-cv-00461-ECT-EMB Doc. 125 Filed 01/27/26 Page 1 of 53

2
interfering with and denying him access to certain medical care under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 and state law. He sued eleven Minnesota Department of
Corrections (“DOC”) officials: Warden William Bolin, Security Officer Andrew
Brosted, Security Officer Stephen Watt, Associate Warden Ajibola Olarinde,
Captain Mercedes Salas Director of Health Services Kathy Reid,1 Security
Sergeant Eric Anderson, Registered Nurse Morrin William, Registered Nurse
Ben Petersen, Registered Nurse and Medical Record Staff Member Christine
Oberembt, and Commissioner Paul Schnell. He also sued Dr. Stephen
Craane and Dr. Louis Shicker, two medical directors with Centurion, a
contractor that provides health services to the DOC (collectively, the
“Centurion Defendants”). All thirteen Defendants are sued in both their
individual and official capacities. (Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 7.)
Before the Court are two motions to dismiss. First, the DOC
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 35), to which Mr. Bakambia
responded, (see Dkt. No. 61), and the DOC Defendants replied, (see Dkt. No.
76). Second, the Centurion Defendants filed a motion to dismiss (Dkt. No.
1 Director Reid died after this action was filed. Her successor, Alexandria
Hart, was substituted for Director Reid with respect to the official-capacity
claims. (See Dkt. No. 124.) For clarity, however, the Court refers to “Director
Reid” rather than making this distinction every time.
CASE 0:25-cv-00461-ECT-EMB Doc. 125 Filed 01/27/26 Page 2 of 53

3
78).2 Mr. Bakambia filed a response (see Dkt. No. 117), and the Centurion
Defendants replied, (see Dkt. No. 122).
Additionally, Mr. Bakambia filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction
(Dkt. No. 23). The DOC Defendants filed a Response (Dkt. No. 40), and Mr.
Bakambia replied, (see Dkt. No. 58). The Centurion Defendants responded
separately. (See Dkt. No. 97.)
The motions have been referred to me for a report and recommendation
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.2(b). The Court
recommends both motions to dismiss be granted, the motion for preliminary
injunction be denied, and this action be dismissed in its entirety.
I. Factual Background
At all relevant times, Mr. Bakambia was a state prisoner incarcerated
at MCF Stillwater.3 This case is the latest in a series of lawsuits he has filed
in this district challenging the adequacy of the medical care he’s received
during his incarceration. See Bakambia v. Schnell, Case No. 20-cv-1434
2 The Centurion Defendants initially filed a memorandum that addressed Mr.
Bakambia’s claim in a similar lawsuit before this district. The Court granted
them leave to file a substituted memorandum in support. (See Dkt. No. 106.)
Accordingly, the operative memorandum in support of the Centurion
Defendants’ motion to dismiss is filed at Dkt. No. 96.
3 After filing this action, Mr. Bakambia was transferred to MCF Lino Lakes.
(Dkt. No. 88.)
CASE 0:25-cv-00461-ECT-EMB Doc. 125 Filed 01/27/26 Page 3 of 53

4
(NEB/DTS) (D. Minn. 2022); Bakambia v. Schnell, Case No. 20-cv-1433
(PAM/TNL) (D. Minn. 2022); Bakambia v. Craane, Case No. 22-cv-2922
(PJS/DTS); Bakambia v. Ghebre, Case No. 24-CV-3653 (LMP/DJF).
Mr. Bakambia suffers from a variety of health issues, including cervical
disc degeneration, chronic migraines caused by a posttraumatic brain injury,
posttraumatic occipital neuralgia, a bulging lumbar spine, and posttraumatic
cervicogenic headaches.4 (Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 9.) Two hernia surgeries in May and
September 2022 left him with frequent and daily nerve pain. (Id.)
A. Offsite Medical Appointments
On November 7, 2023, a gastroenterologist (“GI”) recommended Mr.
Bakambia take the nerve blocker Gabapentin to address his nerve pain. (Id.
¶ 10; see also Dkt. No. 1-1 at 7 (“[I]f all work up negative, could be pain from
incisional site which can try gabapentin.”).)5 On December 6, 2023, however,
the Centurion pharmacy denied the request for Gabapentin. (Dkt. No. 1
¶ 11.) Neither Dr. Shicker nor Dr. Craane prescribed another medication for
nerve pain. (Id.) Dr. Shicker also “cancelled the Celiac Plexux injection for
4 As explained below, the Court accepts all factual allegations in the
complaint as true and construes them in the light most favorable to Mr.
Bakambia. See Hager v. Arkansas Dep’t of Health, 735 F.3d 1009, 1013 (8th
Cir. 2013).
5 Citations to the parties’ briefing references the CM/ECF pagination
included at the top each document.
CASE 0:25-cv-00461-ECT-EMB Doc. 125 Filed 01/27/26 Page 4 of 53

5
stomach nerve pain” because of the “friction between [Mr. Bakambia] and
Health Services.” (Id.) Dr. Craane’s January 2, 2024, medical notes indicate
the denial was “not surprising, as a recent change in Centurion gabapentin
guidelines restricts this medication to patients with nerve related pain from
either diabetes or herpes.” (Dkt. No. 1-1 at 10.)
Several months later, on September 13, 2024, an offsite neurologist
named Dr. Adam Todd met with Mr. Bakambia. (Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 12.) Dr. Todd
diagnosed Mr. Bakambia with “Posttramatic [sic] headaches, worsening,
Posttraumatic occipital neuralgia, rosining, Posttraumatic cervicalgia,
worsening, and Chronic low back pain with left extremity radicular
symptoms.” (Id.). Dr. Todd performed an occipital nerve block during the
September 13 appointment. (See Dkt. No. 1-1 at 2–4.) As part of his
treatment plan, Dr. Todd recommended Mr. Bakambia follow up with
neurosurgeon Dr. Gregory about his back and leg pain.6 (Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 13.)
Dr. Todd also “ordered” the muscle relaxant Zanaflex, which had previously
been ineffective for Mr. Bakambia. (Id. ¶ 15.) Dr. Todd planned to follow up
with Mr. Bakambia for a re-evaluation. (Id. ¶ 13)
6 Neither Dr. Todd nor Dr. Gregory are parties to this lawsuit.
CASE 0:25-cv-00461-ECT-EMB Doc. 125 Filed 01/27/26 Page 5 of 53

6
B. Subsequent Treatment at MCF Stillwater
Dr. Craane, one of the Centurion Defendants, reviewed Dr. Todd’s
notes from the September 13, 2024 visit, and approved the request for a
neurosurgery follow-up on September 19. (Id. ¶¶ 12, 14.) But Dr. Craane
denied the Zanaflex prescription without notifying Mr. Bakambia or asking
Dr. Todd about an alternative muscle relaxant. (Id. ¶ 16.) Mr. Bakambia
sent a kite7 to Director Reid on September 18, requesting his prescription
Zanaflex. (Id. ¶ 17.) A nurse responded to the kite stating: “[P]er Dr.
Craane, Dr. Todd recommended Zanaflex which you took from 7/2023 to
3/2024 with no reported benefit, recommendation was not in Dr. Todd’s
transcribed notes.” (Id.)
Mr. Bakambia sent a follow-up kite to Director Reid on September 16,
complaining about the “dishonesty of this nurse and Dr. Craane.” (Id. ¶ 18.)
Mr. Bakambia pointed Director Reid to the notes from his September 13 visit
with Dr. Todd, which included a “hand written order . . . for Zanaflex,” and
asked her why Dr. Craane did “not reach out to [Dr. Todd] for clarification or
alternative medication.” (Id.) Director Reid responded: “[T]his nurse is []
very professional and respectful, sorry you feel disrespected.” (Id.) The
response did not address Mr. Bakambia’s complaint about Zanaflex. (Id.)
7 A kite is a form that prisoners can use to communicate with staff. (See, e.g.,
Dkt. No. 1-1 at 9.)
CASE 0:25-cv-00461-ECT-EMB Doc. 125 Filed 01/27/26 Page 6 of 53

7
Mr. Bakambia then requested a copy of Dr. Todd’s notes from the
September 13 appointment. (Id. ¶ 19.) Nurse Oberembt responded to this
request by providing Dr. Todd’s dictation, but not his notes from the occipital
nerve block procedure. (Id. ¶¶ 5, 19.) Dr. Todd’s dictation mentioned the
procedure notes, however, so Mr. Bakambia requested the notes from
Director Reid “more than 5 times.” (Id. ¶ 20.) Mr. Bakambia claims Director
Reid “appeared to mock [him] stated [sic] that she was not following his
request.” (Id.)
After reviewing Dr. Todd’s dictation, Mr. Bakambia discovered a clinic
note from Dr. Craane which claimed Mr. Bakambia had tried “Gabapentin
without benefit,” even though Mr. Bakambia had never actually taken
Gabapentin. (Id. ¶ 21.) Mr. Bakambia asked Dr. Shicker about this
discrepancy on October 1, 2024. (Id. ¶ 23.) Although Dr. Shicker “tried to
convince [Mr. Bakambia] that he took Gabapentin,” Dr. Shicker could not
produce a computer record corroborating that assertion. (Id.) Mr. Bakambia
alleges “Dr. Shicker then fraudulently recorded that he and [Mr. Bakambia]
had some discussion” about the GI’s Gabapentin order, and that Dr. Shicker
“recorded that the neurologist noted [Mr. Bakambia] had tried . . .
Gabapentin but [it was] ineffective.” (Id. ¶ 24.) Mr. Bakambia also
questioned Dr. Shicker about Dr. Craane’s denial of the Zanaflex without an
CASE 0:25-cv-00461-ECT-EMB Doc. 125 Filed 01/27/26 Page 7 of 53

8
alternative. (Id. ¶ 25.) Dr. Shicker noted he would “ask providers if they can
reach out to neurologist for any other pain medications.” (Id.)
On October 2, 2024—about three weeks after his appointment with Dr.
Todd—Mr. Bakambia asked Director Reid to provide a “record of Occipital
Nerve Block Procedure Notes” and communications between Drs. Craane and
Todd about alternatives to Zanaflex. (Id. ¶ 26.) Nurse Oberembt responded
by producing a copy of the request for a neurosurgery follow-up, which Dr.
Craane had completed on September 19. (Id.) The request showed that
“someone used a red pen and wrote ‘Approved’ and checked ‘Criteria Met,’”
but did not include a provider’s name or the date of approval. (Id.)
So Mr. Bakambia sent a another kite, but Director Reid “refused” to
produce a copy of the record that included the approving provider’s name.
(Id. ¶ 27.) Director Reid told Mr. Bakambia “that a follow-up was requested
on 9/19/24” and would occur within 90 days because it “was filed as a routine
appointment.” (Id.) But Mr. Bakambia alleges that, under the governing
policy, routine appointments must occur within 75 days. (Id. ¶¶ 28–29.)
Nurse Oberembt sent a response to a kite on October 22, 2024,
“immediately after [Mr. Bakambia] filed a grievance on these issues.” (Id.
¶ 30.) Her response included a completed copy of the neurosurgery follow-up
form, which showed that Dr. Shicker had approved the appointment on
September 28, with the follow-up appointment to occur by December 24. (Id.)
CASE 0:25-cv-00461-ECT-EMB Doc. 125 Filed 01/27/26 Page 8 of 53

9
Nurse Oberembt also claimed to have called Dr. Todd’s office to ask for the
notes from the nerve block procedure but denied having access to any
communications about Zanaflex between Dr. Todd and the Centurion
Defendants. (Id.)
At this point, Mr. Bakambia reviewed the notes from the occipital
nerve block procedure and discovered Dr. Todd had “requested [a] follow-up
with [Mr. Bakambia] ‘as scheduled to re-evaluate condition.’” (Id. ¶ 31.) Mr.
Bakambia sent another kite on October 6, asking Director Reid “who told [Dr.
Todd] that he took Gabapentin without benefit.” (Id. ¶ 32.) Director Reid
told him: “You were on Gabapentin with order from 12/06/23 – 4/3/24 which
was discontinued on 12/06/23 per Dr. Young. Otherwise I do not see you
actually received this medication, I have no knowledge of any neurologist
discussion.” (Id.)
Mr. Bakambia filed a grievance with the “Central Office” on October 22.
(Id. ¶ 33.) That grievance claimed Dr. Todd received “misleading information
about Gabapentin,” sought “a copy of any policy that provide[s] that a
routine offsite appointment[] should occur within 90 days,” and requested
records showing the dates “he took Gabapentin, who told [Dr. Todd] that he
took Gabapentin and [it] was ineffective, why no-one reach[ed] out to [Dr.
Todd] about alternative muscle relaxant, who approved his neurosurgeon
CASE 0:25-cv-00461-ECT-EMB Doc. 125 Filed 01/27/26 Page 9 of 53

10
follow-up and who decided for it to occur within 90 days.” (Id.) That
grievance was dismissed on procedural grounds. (See id. ¶ 34.)
Mr. Bakambia sent another kite on October 29, 2024, and signed up for
sick call. (Id. ¶ 35.) He complained of severe pain and asked what Dr. Todd
advised about an alternative to Zanaflex. (Id.) Director Reid responded on
November 4, stating, “you have a provider [appointment] coming up soon, so
please discuss with the provider.” (Id.) Mr. Bakambia alleges Director Reid
backdated her response to October 30. (Id.)
C. Interactions with Officers Watt and Brosted
On October 31, Mr. Bakambia’s pain became worse. Around 11:30pm
that night, he complained to Officers Watt and Brosted about severe pain,
limited range of motion, and pinched nerves. (Id. ¶ 36.) He asked the officers
to put in a request for the watch commander “to contact the on-call doctor.”
(Id.) The officers refused to do so. Officer Brosted, who claimed to have a
medical degree, told Mr. Bakambia to “lay down on his bed” and “he knows
that the pain will go away.” (Id. ¶ 37.) Neither officer reported this incident
or included it in the roster shift report. (Id. ¶ 38.)
Mr. Bakambia’s pain persisted until the following morning. Around
8:00am on November 1, he asked another officer (who is not a party to this
action) to contact health services. (Id. ¶ 39.) That officer contacted Nurse
William, who advised the officer that Mr. Bakambia should sign up for sick
CASE 0:25-cv-00461-ECT-EMB Doc. 125 Filed 01/27/26 Page 10 of 53

11
call. (Id.) Mr. Bakambia told the officer that he’d submitted a sick call form
on October 29, but Nurse William “falsely replied that he didn’t see the sick
call slip” and “placed a pass” for Mr. Bakambia to be seen at 12:30pm that
day. (Id. ¶ 40.) Mr. Bakambia alleges he “was in severe pain and needed
emergency medical attention.” (Id.)
The nonparty officer then activated an Incident Command System
(“ICS”) at Mr. Bakambia’s request. (Id. ¶¶ 35, 41.) A nurse practitioner
assed Mr. Bakambia, “treated him with Toradol for acute pain,” and ordered
a reassessment in two days. (Id. ¶ 41.) She advised Mr. Bakambia that she
would “try to advance his pending follow-up with [his] neurosurgeon due to
[his] worsening condition.” (Id.) At some point after that, the nurse
practitioner sent Mr. Bakambia a memo that read: “Neurosurgery follow-up
has been cleared by Centurion Utilization. Time and date depend on
Neurosurgery Clinic.” (Id. ¶ 42.)
Mr. Bakambia then reported officers Watt and Brosted to the unit
lieutenant, who is not a party to this action. (Id. ¶ 52.) He asked (1) why the
officers “refused to contact the watch commander for medical attention,” (2)
why Officer Brosted “found it appropriate to deny [Mr. Bakambia] medical
attention and on what capacity was [Officer Brosted] working under that
night,” (3) whether the incident was documented on the roster report and, if
CASE 0:25-cv-00461-ECT-EMB Doc. 125 Filed 01/27/26 Page 11 of 53

12
so, that he be given a copy, and (4) whether “staff are trained to dehumanized
[sic] inmates in this fashion.” (Id.)
Captain Salas responded to this complaint. She referred Mr. Bakambia
to Associate Warden Olarinde “to request data” and promised to follow up
with the staff members in question because “staff misconduct is not
tolerated.” (Id. ¶ 53.) Captain Salas also “claimed she saw that” health
services followed up with Mr. Bakambia, “despite the fact that she knew this
was on a different shift the following day while his pain continued and it was
Officer Watt and Brosted who made Health Services aware of his condition.”
(Id.) Captain Salas did not tell Mr. Bakambia what steps, if any, she took to
address the alleged staff misconduct. (Id. ¶ 54.)
i. Warden Bolin
On November 11, Mr. Bakambia filed a grievance to Warden Bolin
about Officers Watt and Brosted, attaching Captain Salas’s response. (Id.
¶ 56.) The grievance was returned two days later with a directive to
resubmit it after making a data request to Associate Warden Olarinde. (Id.)
Mr. Bakambia resubmitted the grievance on November 19, explaining
that he had already requested the data from Associate Warden Olarinde but
she had “not responded pursuant to the statutory deadline.” (Id. ¶ 57.) Mr.
Bakambia also expressed his belief that Associate Warden Olarinde was not
part of the chain of command. (Id. ¶¶ 56–57.) Mr. Bakambia alleges Warden
CASE 0:25-cv-00461-ECT-EMB Doc. 125 Filed 01/27/26 Page 12 of 53

13
Bolin “intentionally withheld the grievance for almost a month”—the warden
claimed to have received the grievance on December 6 and entered it on
December 11. (Id. ¶ 63.) The grievance was entered as a records issue rather
than one involving staff misconduct or deliberate indifference to Mr.
Bakambia’s medical needs. (Id.)
Mr. Bakambia filed an appeal on December 15, noting Warden Bolin’s
“manipulation of the deadlines,” but the appeal was returned on December 23
because it did not include a warden response and was still under
investigation. (Id. ¶¶ 63–64.) Mr. Bakambia refiled his appeal to the DOC
central office on December 29, including a “copy of the Warden[’s] dismissal of
his grievance that didn’t show any investigation was done on the substance of
the issue.” (Id. ¶ 64.) On January 15, “the appeal authority responded by
refusing to address the substance of the issue,” but claimed that the
“grievance appeal ‘ha[d] been investigated.” (Id.)
ii. Associate Warden Olarinde
On November 10, Mr. Bakambia asked Associate Warden Olarinde to
provide Officer Brosted’s medical background and “to preserve video
surveillance of his interaction with both staff.” (Id. ¶ 55.) Associate Warden
Olarinde responded on November 22. She provided the names of both officers
but refused to provide their medical backgrounds because that “is considered
private data.” (Id. ¶ 58.) She also advised that video surveillance wouldn’t
CASE 0:25-cv-00461-ECT-EMB Doc. 125 Filed 01/27/26 Page 13 of 53

14
be saved at the request of prisoners, and that the roster did not include any
documentation of the officers’ interactions with Mr. Bakambia. (Id.) Finally,
she included a “heavily redacted incident report of ICS activated the
following date by another officer.” (Id.)
Three days later, Mr. Bakambia sent another request to Associate
Warden Olarinde. He asked her to “provide a statute that classifies the
officer medical background as private data,” requested an unredacted copy of
the incident report, and emphasized that she should save the surveillance
footage, pointing to previous instances where video had been retained at his
request. (Id. ¶ 59.) Associate Warden Olarinde didn’t respond until
December 20—outside the “data retention period.” (Id. ¶ 60.) She told Mr.
Bakambia she had been “given incorrect information about personnel data”
and about saving video data. (Id.) She disclosed that Officer Brosted had a
background as a paramedic, but that “the retention period” of the video in
question had “expired” and was “not able to be saved.” (Id.) Finally, “she
refused to unredact the incident report.” (Id.)
Mr. Bakambia sent another request to Associate Warden Olarinde on
December 25. This time, he asked her to “admit to the liability of willful
failure to preserve” the October 31 surveillance video, and to “tell him who
initially gave her incorrect information.” (Id. ¶ 61.) At some point, Associate
Warden Olarinde told Mr. Bakambia “that she [had] already given him her
CASE 0:25-cv-00461-ECT-EMB Doc. 125 Filed 01/27/26 Page 14 of 53

15
response regarding the video.” (Id.) Mr. Bakambia pressed the issue in a
third request, submitted December 30. (Id. ¶ 62.) He claimed to be “entitled
to know who gave her incorrect information about the background of staff
and video preservation.” (Id.) In response, Associate Warden Olarinde
responded: “I don’t recall.” (Id.)
D. Complaints About Medical Treatment
Mr. Bakambia had an appointment with Dr. Craane on November 4,
2024. During that meeting, he alleges “Dr. Craane sat in his chair without
conducting any physical exam, and refused to address plaintiff’s sick call for
stomach nerve pain, yet he was waiting for [Mr. Bakambia] to ask questions
[to] which he responded dishonestly.” (Id. ¶ 43.) When Mr. Bakambia
inquired about “a request for follow-up with his neurologist . . . Dr. Craane
falsely told [him] that the neurologist did not request any follow-up to re-
evaluation [sic] condition.” (Id. ¶ 44.) As to the alternative muscle relaxant,
Dr. Craane claimed Dr. Shicker had messaged Dr. Todd but had not yet
heard back. (Id. ¶ 45.) Dr. Craane represented that he’d send another
message to Dr. Todd after that appointment and would “speak with the
scheduler” to try to “advance” Mr. Bakambia’s follow-up appointment with
his neurosurgeon. (Id. ¶¶ 45–46.)
That same day, Mr. Bakambia sent two kites to Dr. Craane, asking (1)
why Dr. Craane “did not address [Mr. Bakambia’s] sick call for stomach nerve
CASE 0:25-cv-00461-ECT-EMB Doc. 125 Filed 01/27/26 Page 15 of 53

16
pain,” and (2) “why there is no record for [his] scheduled follow-up with
neurologist.” (Id. ¶ 48.) Director Reid responded to one of the kites, stating
that “[p]roviders do not respond to kites,” which Mr. Bakambia alleges is a
“fraudulent[]” statement. (Id. ¶ 49; see also Dkt. No. 1-1 at 36 (indicating
further that “Dr. Craane has documentation that he reached out to Dr. Todd
again on 11-4-24.”).) Nurse Oberembt sent a response to the other kite,
stating: “Your kite was placed on my desk due to it being an offsite question.
Attached is your signed approval for a neurosurgery follow up appt., which
[sic] also scheduled.” (Dkt. No. 1-1 at 35; see also Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 49.)
Mr. Bakambia “filed a grievance to the facility grievance authority for
medical issues at DOC Central Office” on November 19, 2024. (Dkt. No. 1
¶ 50.) The grievance: (1) asked for confirmation that Dr. Todd requested a
follow-up appointment and, if so, an explanation “why Dr. Craane lied that
he did not,” (2) complained that Dr. Craane had failed to directly respond to
the November 4 kites, (3) requested “proof that Dr. Craane and Dr. Shicker
messaged his neurologist about [an] alternative muscle relaxant,” and (4)
sought confirmation that “providers do not respond to inmates [sic] kites as
Ms. Reid had falsely alleged.” (Id.) That grievance wasn’t returned to him,
so he filed an appeal at some point after December 23. (See id. ¶ 51.) The
appeal was denied on procedural grounds on January 2, 2025. (Id.) The
CASE 0:25-cv-00461-ECT-EMB Doc. 125 Filed 01/27/26 Page 16 of 53

17
appeal authority told Mr. Bakambia it “cannot process a grievance appeal for
which there is no original and accepted facility grievance.” (Id.)
E. November 27 Neurology Appointment and Complaints
about Medication
On November 27, Mr. Bakambia was transported to an offsite
appointment. (Id. ¶ 65.) According to the guards who transported him, the
paperwork indicated he was headed to a “Neurosurgery Consult,” but he was
actually taken to the office of his neurologist, Dr. Todd. (Id. ¶¶ 65–66.) Mr.
Bakambia was treated by Dr. Todd’s physician’s assistant (“PA”), who
documented that Mr. Bakambia has “not seen the neurosurgeon yet.” (Id. ¶
66.) The PA searched for messages from Drs. Craane or Shicker about the
alternative muscle relaxant but “found no record of messages” in their
database. (Id. ¶ 69.) During this appointment, Mr. Bakambia told the PA
that he had never taken Gabapentin, but that Centurion had denied it
anyway. (Id. ¶ 70.)
The PA “prescribed urgent medication” to address Mr. Bakambia’s pain
and “recommended again for plaintiff to follow-up with neurosurgeon Dr.
Gregory for chronic pain.” (Id. ¶¶ 67–68.) When Mr. Bakambia returned to
the prison later that day, he gave the prescription to a nurse and told her
that the PA recommended he start on the prescribed medications (Medrol and
Rizatriptan) “immediately.” (Id. ¶ 72.) The nurse delivered the prescription
CASE 0:25-cv-00461-ECT-EMB Doc. 125 Filed 01/27/26 Page 17 of 53

18
to Dr. Craane who signed it. (Id.) Although Dr. Craane knew Mr. Bakambia
was in pain, he did not “process or order[] these medications,” but instead
“left that prescription in his office and went home” knowing he would be out
of the office for several days, until December 2. (Id. ¶ 73.)
Later that evening, Mr. Bakambia began “experienc[ing] more severe
pain.” (Id. ¶ 74.) After unit security contacted health services for Mr.
Bakambia’s prescription, the same nurse from earlier that day advised that
“Dr. Crane [sic] left the prescription [in] his office.” (Id.) She then offered
Tylenol, which Mr. Bakambia had previously taken without any relief. (Id.)
Just before midnight that evening, Mr. Bakambia asked to speak with
the watch commander to report his severe pain and report Dr. Craane for
failing to process the prescription before leaving for the Thanksgiving
weekend. (Id. ¶ 75.) A member of the crisis intervention team (“CIT”)
documented the complaint and forwarded a “copy to health services” for Mr.
Bakambia to be “seen in the morning of November 28,” the next day. (Id.)
Because Nurse William was the charge nurse on November 28, Mr.
Bakambia alleges he would have seen the report from the CIT. (Id. ¶ 76.)
But Nurse William didn’t reach out to Mr. Bakambia or the on-call doctor.
(Id.) At 9:00 that morning, Mr. Bakambia again complained to a unit officer
and asked that the on-call doctor process his prescription. (Id. ¶ 77.) Nurse
William “deliberately lied” to the unit officer, telling her that “Dr. Craane
CASE 0:25-cv-00461-ECT-EMB Doc. 125 Filed 01/27/26 Page 18 of 53

19
already processed the prescription and [Mr. Bakambia] should wait until
they arrive.” (Id.) After Mr. Bakambia told the unit officer this was false,
she called Nurse William back, and he agreed to “look for those paper work
[sic] and call back, but he never did.” (Id. ¶ 78.)
Just before noon that day, another officer contacted Nurse William to
ask if he had found the paperwork. (Id. ¶ 79.) Mr. Bakambia alleges Nurse
William “lie[d] to the second officer,” but it is unclear what he said. (Id.)
Around the same time, Sergeant Anderson told Mr. Bakambia “to walk away,
that he didn’t want to hear his pain complaint,” and that Nurse William had
already “told him to wait until the medication arrive.” (Id.) Mr. Bakambia
told Sergeant Anderson that Nurse William had lied about the medication
and instead asked him to activate an ICS. (Id. ¶ 80.) Sergeant Anderson
“refused and told [Mr. Bakambia] to file a grievance on him if he wants to.”
(Id.)
Mr. Bakambia asked another officer to bring him to health services so
the on-call doctor could prescribe his medication. (Id. ¶ 81.) This officer
contacted Nurse William “and made sure [Mr. Bakambia] was escorted to
Health Services around 12:30 PM” that same day. (Id.) On the way to see
the on-call doctor, Sergeant Anderson told the officers escorting Mr.
Bakambia that he was faking his pain. (Id. ¶ 82.) After Mr. Bakambia
arrived at health services, Nurse William contacted the on-call doctor, who
CASE 0:25-cv-00461-ECT-EMB Doc. 125 Filed 01/27/26 Page 19 of 53

20
immediately processed the prescription. (Id. ¶ 83.) Mr. Bakambia received
the pills that same evening. (Id.) Nurse William’s notes from this incident
read: “[Patient] escorted to [Health Services] for extreme neck pain that
radiates into his shoulders and up into the back [of] his head. [Patient] rates
pain 10/10.” (Id. ¶ 84.)
Mr. Bakambia sent a kite to Nurse William on December 6, 2024,
requesting records of his phone conversations he had with other officers on
November 28, 2024. (Id. ¶ 85.) Nurse Petersen replied to the kite, stating:
“There is no record of specific phone calls to and from staff, and that I see you
were escorted to Health Services that day after Unit staff notified Health
Services of a concern.” (Id.) Nurse Petersen advised Mr. Bakambia “to follow
the chain of command if he didn’t like his response.”8 (Id. ¶ 86.)
Mr. Bakambia took that suggestion and filed a complaint to Captain
Salas on December 1, 2024. (Id. ¶ 88.) He alleged that Dr. Craane, Dr.
Shicker, Director Reid, Nurse William, and Sergeant Anderson lied to his
neurologist about Mr. Bakambia’s history with Gabapentin. (Id.) He
complained that Dr. Craane left the prescription in his office over the long
weekend, and that Nurse William “covered up for Dr. Craane and lied to
8 Mr. Bakambia alleges that Nurse Petersen himself violated the chain of
command “because the chain starts from [Nurse William] the subject of the
issue.” (Id. ¶ 86.)
CASE 0:25-cv-00461-ECT-EMB Doc. 125 Filed 01/27/26 Page 20 of 53

21
several officers in the process.” (Id.) He also faulted Sergeant Anderson for
believing Nurse William and denying Mr. Bakambia “medical attention by
refusing to activate an ICS.” (Id.)
Mr. Bakambia requested Captain Salas “reprimand, discipline[] and
terminat[e] or suspend and criminally charge” all five of those individuals.
(Id. ¶ 89.) Mr. Bakambia also reminded Captain Salas that he’d previously
complained about Officer Brosted. (Id.) Captain Salas responded: “I have
followed up on this situation with Sgt. Anderson, as far as your health
services concern, please follow the chain of command for this, I wish you the
best with healing your medical condition, please notify staff if you have a
medical emergency in the future.” (Id. ¶ 90.)
Mr. Bakambia, unsatisfied with this response, filed a grievance with
Warden Bolin on December 9, 2024. (Id. ¶ 91.) He asked that Drs. Craane
and Shicker, Nurse William, and Director Reid “be reprimanded, suspended
or terminated,” and he requested the report from the outcome of any
investigation into those individuals. (Id.) Warden Bolin claimed to have
received the grievance on December 24 and told Mr. Bakambia to expect a
response within 21 days from that date. (Id. ¶ 92.)
Backing up to Monday December 2, 2024—the day after the long
weekend—Dr. Craane “unexpectedly” met with Mr. Bakambia. (Id. ¶ 95.)
During this meeting, Mr. Bakambia “became extremely agitated” after Dr.
CASE 0:25-cv-00461-ECT-EMB Doc. 125 Filed 01/27/26 Page 21 of 53

22
Craane “lie[d] to him” about “not process[ing] the prescription because he was
waiting for the ‘Neurosurgeon’ transcribed, despite the fact that he knew that
was not a neurosurgeon Consult, and transcribed notes was not needed.”9
(Id. ¶ 96 (grammar and capitalization in original).) Mr. Bakambia inquired
about when he could meet with his neurosurgeon, Dr. Gregory, per Dr.
Shicker’s September 28 approval. (Id. ¶ 98.) Dr. Craane told Mr. Bakambia
“that he had just seen Neurosurgeon Dr. Gregory’s Assistant on November
27, 2024 and that there is no other follow-up scheduled or pending for
neurosurgeon.” (Id.)
Mr. Bakambia asked Dr. Craane “to show him proof” that the
November 27 appointment was a neurosurgery consult because it was in fact
an appointment with the PA to his neurologist, Dr. Todd. (Id. ¶ 99.)
Nevertheless, Dr. Craane produced a “prescription document” that stated the
appointment was a “Neurosurgery Consult.” (Id. ¶ 100.) Mr. Bakambia
alleges this document was “falsified,” and that Dr. Craane “willfully recorded
those lies . . . on [his] medical record.” (Id. ¶¶ 100–101.)
Mr. Bakambia “supplemented” his grievance to Warden Bolin on
December 29 by providing a copy of Dr. Craane’s December 2 notes “showing
9 The Complaint alleges that Dr. Craane had processed a different
prescription in June 2023 even though he had not yet received transcribed
copies of the neurologist’s notes. (Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 97.)
CASE 0:25-cv-00461-ECT-EMB Doc. 125 Filed 01/27/26 Page 22 of 53

23
how he documented his lies he told [Mr. Bakambia] about neurosurgeon,” the
kite to Nurse William requesting phone conversations, and a kite to Director
Reid requesting information about his neurosurgery follow up. (Id. ¶ 93.) On
January 7, 2025, Warden Bolin told Mr. Bakambia a response to the
grievance would now be sent by January 24, 2025. (Id.)
F. Mr. Bakambia’s Neurosurgery Follow-Up
On December 5, 2024, Mr. Bakambia sent a kite to Director Reid
asking her when he would see his neurosurgeon, Dr. Gregory, for a follow-up
appointment.10 (Id. ¶ 102.) Nurse William responded to this kite, stating,
“The neurology follow up appt has been submitted but not yet approved but
was requested for 3 months from previous appt.” (Id. ¶ 103.) Mr. Bakambia
alleges that Nurse William “willfully deflected” by providing information
about a neurology appointment instead of a neurosurgery appointment. (Id.)
Mr. Bakambia sent a second kite to Director Reid on December 13,
asking: “MAY I PLEASE KNOW WHAT HAPPENED WITH MY APPROVED
NEUROSURGEON FOLLOW-UP (WITH DR. GREGORY) APPROVED BY
DR. SHICKER ON 9/28/24.” (Id. ¶ 104.) A nurse responded to this kite,
10 The kite also asked why Mr. Bakambia only received three pills of
Rizatriptan, (the medication prescribed by Dr. Todd’s PA) instead of nine. (Id.
¶ 103.) Nurse William responded that “[t]he recommendation for Rizatriptan
did not specif[y] how many tabs.” (Id.; see also Dkt. No. 1-1 at 52
(corroborating Nurse William’s response).)
CASE 0:25-cv-00461-ECT-EMB Doc. 125 Filed 01/27/26 Page 23 of 53

24
stating, “Request for follow-up has been sent to Central Office and is
awaiting approval.” (Id.)
Unsatisfied with this response, Mr. Bakambia sent a third kite to
Director Reid on December 17. (Id. ¶ 105.) It included “a copy of already
approved neurosurgeon follow-up appointment by Dr. Shicker,” and again
asked “WHAT HAPPENED TO THIS ALREADY APPROVED FOLLOW-UP
WITH NEUROSURGEON.” (Id.) Director Reid responded to this kite,
stating, “I’m sorry but I have no 1st hand information on this topic, I do know
that Dr. Craane has filed for a 3-month follow-up on 12-6-24.” (Id.)
Mr. Bakambia sent a “facility medical grievance” to DOC’s central
office on December 19, 2024. (Id. ¶ 107.) He received a response from the
“grievance appeal authority . . . instead of facility grievance authority”
stating it “cannot process a grievance appeal for which there is no original
and accepted facility grievance.” (Id. ¶¶ 107–108.)
Mr. Bakambia then sent another kite to Director Reid on December 29,
asking whether his neurosurgery follow-up would occur, what happened to
the appointment, and who cancelled it. (Id. ¶ 109.) Director Reid sent a
response saying: “I do not see an appt with [neurosurgeon] Dr. Gregory – only
with [neurologist] Dr. Todd.” (Id.) Mr. Bakambia responded with another
kite on January 7, 2025, reiterating his questions about the previously
approved neurosurgery appointment. (Id. ¶ 110.) Ms. Reid told him that “[a]
CASE 0:25-cv-00461-ECT-EMB Doc. 125 Filed 01/27/26 Page 24 of 53

25
neurology follow-up has been requested but not yet scheduled either with Dr.
Todd or Noran,” the neurology clinic. (Id.)
Mr. Bakambia sent a final kite to Director Reid on January 14, 2025,
telling her to “stop playing with word[s] while his condition is only getting
worse.” (Id. ¶ 111.) He explained that his question was about his
neurosurgery appointment with Dr. Gregory, which Dr. Shicker had
approved on September 28, 2024. (Id.) She responded: “You have a follow-up
with Dr. Todd with Noran Neurology, you have no pending appts with Dr.
Gregory requested.” (Id.)
II. Analysis
The complaint includes five claims for relief. First, Mr. Bakambia
asserts a claim of cruel and unusual punishment and deliberate indifference
to serious medical needs for intentional interference to access medical care
against the Centurion Defendants and DOC Defendants Warden Bolin,
Officer Brosted, Officer Watt, Director Kathy Reid, Sergeant Anderson,
Nurse William, Nurse Petersen, Nurse Oberembt, and Commissioner Paul
Schnell. (Id. ¶¶ 112–126.) Second, he alleges the Centurion Defendants and
Director Reid retaliated against him because he filed a previous § 1983 claim
and grievances. (Id. ¶¶ 127–131.) Third, he brings a claim for ministerial
neglect for improper and inadequate medical care against the Centurion
Defendants, Warden Bolin, Director Reid, and Commissioner Schnell. (Id. ¶¶
CASE 0:25-cv-00461-ECT-EMB Doc. 125 Filed 01/27/26 Page 25 of 53

26
132–135.) Fourth, he alleges Warden Bolin, Associate Warden Olarinde, and
Captain Salas breached their duty to protect him. (Id. ¶¶ 136–140.) And
finally, he brings a claim for failure to investigate, discipline, reprimand, or
suspend against Warden Bolin, Captain Salas, and Commissioner Schnell.
(Id. ¶ 141.)
The Court first considers the motions to dismiss, discussing the claims
against Commissioner Schnell before turning to the claims against all other
defendants. Finally, the Court addresses Mr. Bakambia’s motion for
preliminary injunction.
A. Claims Against Commissioner Schnell
Mr. Bakambia asserts three claims against Commissioner Schnell.
(See id. at 30, 34, 36.) But his complaint includes no factual allegations
related to Commissioner Schnell—he is merely included in the claims for
relief section without further explanation. Because Mr. Bakambia has wholly
failed to include any facts regarding Commissioner Schnell’s actions or
inactions, the Court should dismiss the claims against him without prejudice.
See Wilson v. Minnesota Sex Offender Program, 18-CV-3352-NEB-KMM,
2019 WL 5149935, at *2 (D. Minn. June 21, 2019) (recommending dismissal
for failure to state a claim where pro se complaint mentioned certain
defendants just once, in a conclusory statement that they violated plaintiff’s
CASE 0:25-cv-00461-ECT-EMB Doc. 125 Filed 01/27/26 Page 26 of 53

27
rights), report and recommendation adopted, 18-CV-3352 (NEB/KMM), 2019
WL 3716602 (D. Minn. Aug. 7, 2019).
B. Eighth Amendment Violations
In his first claim, Mr. Bakambia alleges the Centurion Defendants,11
Warden Bolin, Officer Brosted, Officer Watt, Director Kathy Reid, Sergeant
Anderson, Nurse William, Nurse Petersen, Nurse Oberembt, and
Commissioner Schnell violated his rights under the Eight Amendment. Both
sets of defendants argue this claim is subject to dismissal for failure to state a
claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).12
To survive a motion to dismiss, the complaint must “state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
(quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). When
11 Much of Mr. Bakambia’s opposition to the Centurion Defendants’ motion to
dismiss focuses on what he perceives as misconduct or fraud committed by
their attorneys. (See, e.g., Dkt. No. 117 at 3–6.) Despite Mr. Bakambia’s
criticisms, nothing in the record suggests the attorneys have acted in bad
faith or violated their ethical obligations to the Court. To the extent Mr.
Bakambia seeks some type of affirmative relief on that basis, the
undersigned recommends those requests be denied.
12 In his response, Mr. Bakambia seems to ask the Court to convert the DOC
Defendants’ motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment. (See Dkt. No.
117 at 19.) But the DOC Defendants did not ask the Court to consider any
materials outside the pleadings that would require such a result. The
undersigned has only considered the pleadings and the documents that Mr.
Bakambia attached to the complaint, so the motions to dismiss need not be
converted to motions for summary judgment.
CASE 0:25-cv-00461-ECT-EMB Doc. 125 Filed 01/27/26 Page 27 of 53

28
analyzing such a challenge, the Court accepts all well-pleaded facts as true
and construes them in the light most favorable to plaintiff. Hager v.
Arkansas Dept. of Health, 735 F.3d 1009, 1013 (8th Cir. 2013). But the Court
need not accept the truth of legal conclusions or “naked assertion[s]” devoid of
“further factual enhancement.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (alteration in original).
And although the Court construes pro se pleadings liberally, it cannot
act as the pro se litigant’s advocate. See Hazley v. Roy, 16-CV-3935
(SRN/TNL), 2017 WL 9672390, at *4 (D. Minn. Nov. 3, 2017), report and
recommendation adopted, 16-CV-3935 (SRN/TNL), 2018 WL 1399309 (D.
Minn. Mar. 20, 2018). At the motion-to-dismiss stage, “[t]he Court may
consider documents attached to the complaint.” Waters v. Madson, CV 17-935
(PAM/SER), 2017 WL 6403099, at *1 n.1 (D. Minn. Dec. 14, 2017) (citing
Greenman v. Jessen, 787 F.3d 882, 887 (8th Cir. 2015)), aff’d, 921 F.3d 725
(8th Cir. 2019).
Mr. Bakambia’s first claim is filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, “which
is the vehicle through which federal constitutional rights are vindicated.”
Hackenmueller v. Fadden, 196 F. Supp. 3d 992, 999 (D. Minn. 2016). Mr.
Bakambia claims the named defendants violated his Eighth Amendment
right against “cruel and unusual punishment[]” because they were
CASE 0:25-cv-00461-ECT-EMB Doc. 125 Filed 01/27/26 Page 28 of 53

29
deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. U.S. Const. amend.
VIII.
To state a claim for deliberate indifference, Mr. Bakambia must
plausibly allege “(1) that [he] suffered objectively serious medical needs and
(2) that [defendants] actually knew of but deliberately disregarded those
needs.” Hamner v. Burls, 937 F.3d 1171, 1177 (8th Cir. 2019) (quoting
Plemmons v. Roberts, 439 F.3d 818, 823 (8th Cir. 2006)) (first alteration in
original). As to the objective element, a medical need is serious if it has
either “been diagnosed by a physician as requiring treatment,” or if it “is so
obvious that even a layperson would easily recognize the necessity for a
doctor’s attention.” Schaub v. VonWald, 638 F.3d 905, 914 (8th Cir. 2011)
(quoting Camberos v. Branstad, 73 F.3d 174, 176 (8th Cir. 1995)). And as to
the subjective element, the Court must confine its analysis to “the official’s
knowledge at the time in question.” Id. at 915.
“Deliberate indifference is equivalent to criminal-law recklessness,
which is ‘more blameworthy than negligence,’ yet less blameworthy than
purposefully causing or knowingly bringing about a substantial risk of
serious harm to the inmate.” Id. at 914–15 (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511
U.S. 825, 835 (1994)). So, although “prison officials may not deliberately
delay or deny prisoners’ medical care,” Mr. Bakambia “‘must show more than
negligence, more even than gross negligence,’ to make out a constitutional
CASE 0:25-cv-00461-ECT-EMB Doc. 125 Filed 01/27/26 Page 29 of 53

30
violation.” Hamner, 937 F.3d at 1177 (quoting Est. of Rosenberg by
Rosenberg v. Crandell, 56 F.3d 35, 37 (8th Cir. 1995)) (citation omitted).
Inaction in the face of a substantial risk of serious harm can also
constitute deliberate indifference. Schaub, 638 F.3d at 920. But if “an inmate
‘alleges that a delay in medical treatment constituted a constitutional
deprivation, the objective seriousness of the deprivation should also be
measured by reference to the effect of delay in treatment.”” Dantzler v.
Baldwin, 133 F.4th 833, 843 (8th Cir. 2025) (quoting Cheeks v. Belmar, 80
F.4th 872, 878 (8th Cir. 2023)).
“The Eighth Amendment does not require prison officials to provide
inmates with their preferred medical treatment, or even very good
treatment.” Bakambia v. Ghebre, No. 24-CV-3653 (LMP/DJF), 2025 WL
2936880 at *14 (D. Minn. May 23, 2025) (citations omitted), report and
recommendation adopted, No. 24-CV-3653 (LMP/DJF), 2025 WL 2528591 (D.
Minn. Sept. 3, 2025). Instead, the Eighth Amendment only requires prison
officials “to provide adequate medical care.” Id. (citing cases). “Grossly
incompetent or inadequate care can constitute deliberate indifference but the
care provided must be so inappropriate as to evidence intentional
maltreatment or a refusal to provide essential care.” Cannon v. Dehner, 112
CASE 0:25-cv-00461-ECT-EMB Doc. 125 Filed 01/27/26 Page 30 of 53

31
F.4th 580, 587 (8th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 1149 (2025) (quoting
Dulany v. Carnahan, 132 F.3d 1234, 1242 (8th Cir. 1997)).
The Constitution does not guarantee a “right to receive a particular or
requested course of treatment, and [prison medical professionals] remain free
to exercise their independent medical judgment.” Id. at 589 (quoting Dulany,
132 F.3d at 1239) (alteration in original); see also Jolly v. Knudsen, 205 F.3d
1094, 1096 (8th Cir. 2000) (“[M]ere disagreement with treatment decisions
does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation.”).
Even construing the facts alleged in the light most favorable to Mr.
Bakambia, the defendants’ behavior does not rise to the level of a
constitutional violation. The Court addresses the claims against each
individual defendant below.
i. Dr. Shicker
Mr. Bakambia’s complaints about Dr. Shicker involve (1) his alleged
misrepresentations about Gabapentin, (2) his failure to discuss an alternative
muscle relaxant with Dr. Todd, and (3) his interference with Mr. Bakambia’s
neurosurgery follow-up appointment.13 Even assuming Mr. Bakambia had
13 Mr. Bakambia also claims that Dr. Shicker “cancelled the Celiac Plexux
injection for stomach nerve pain” because of the “friction between [Mr.
Bakambia] and Health Services.” (Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 11.) But the complaint
includes no other allegations about the nature of this treatment, the
circumstances under which it was cancelled, or the alleged friction. This
CASE 0:25-cv-00461-ECT-EMB Doc. 125 Filed 01/27/26 Page 31 of 53

32
an objectively serious medical need, none of these allegations are sufficient to
satisfy the subjective prong of the Eighth Amendment analysis.
The complaint alleges that Dr. Shicker falsely told Mr. Bakambia he’d
previously taken Gabapentin without benefit. In fact, Mr. Bakambia alleges,
he had previously been prescribed Gabapentin but never received it. (See
Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 32.) At best, these allegations suggest that Dr. Shicker
negligently reviewed Mr. Bakambia’s medical records. But allegations of
negligence—even gross negligence—are insufficient to state a claim for
deliberate indifference.14
Mr. Bakambia also claims Dr. Shicker failed to contact Dr. Todd about
an alternative muscle relaxant. Mr. Bakambia does not dispute that he had
previously taken Zanaflex without benefit, so Dr. Shicker’s decision not to
prescribe an ineffective medication does not give rise to a constitutional
violation. See Jolly, 205 F.3d at 1096 (“[M]ere disagreement with treatment
decisions does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation.” (quoting
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). Even assuming the Eighth
conclusory statement, standing alone, does not plausibly give rise to a claim
of deliberate indifference.
14 Additionally, documents attached to Mr. Bakambia’s complaint suggest the
Centurion pharmacy declined to fill the Gabapentin prescription because that
medication was only approved for inmates with diabetes or herpes. (Dkt. No.
1-1 at 10.)
CASE 0:25-cv-00461-ECT-EMB Doc. 125 Filed 01/27/26 Page 32 of 53

33
Amendment would require Dr. Shicker to contact Dr. Todd about a substitute
medication, the factual allegations in the complaint demonstrate that Dr.
Shicker in fact attempted to contact Dr. Todd. (See Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 25, 45.)
Beyond Mr. Bakambia’s conclusory allegations about a conspiracy, nothing in
the complaint suggests Dr. Shicker deliberately avoided or ignored the issue,
even if he never successfully reached Dr. Todd. Again, these allegations at
most suggest negligence, not deliberate indifference. See Monteleone v.
Corizon, 686 F. App’x. 655, 659 (11th Cir. 2017) (“[F]ailure to substitute a
more effective medication may constitute negligence, it does not rise to the
level of deliberate indifference.”).
Finally, Mr. Bakambia argues Dr. Shicker interfered with the
neurosurgery follow-up appointment, but the complaint’s allegations belie
this assertion. Dr. Shicker was the one who approved the appointment, (Dkt.
No. 1 ¶ 30), and there are no allegations that he was responsible for
scheduling it. Mr. Bakambia was told the appointment would occur within
90 days of approval (i.e., by December 18, 2024), although he claims it needed
to occur within 75 days (i.e., by December 3, 2024). And, indeed, Mr.
Bakambia alleges he saw Dr. Todd’s PA on November 27, before the 75-day
deadline. Although he claims he should have seen neurosurgeon Dr. Gregory
instead of neurologist Dr. Todd, he was taken to an off-site specialist who
treated him for his pain about two months after Dr. Shicker approved the
CASE 0:25-cv-00461-ECT-EMB Doc. 125 Filed 01/27/26 Page 33 of 53

34
follow-up appointment. This course of events does not reflect the type of
deliberate indifference that is constitutionally actionable. Accordingly, this
claim should be dismissed as to Dr. Shicker.
ii. Dr. Craane
The claim against Dr. Craane fails for many of the same reasons
articulated above. For example, Mr. Bakambia alleges Dr. Craane denied the
Zanaflex without seeking an alternative from Dr. Todd. Director Reid’s
response to the kite noted the denial was based on the fact that Mr.
Bakambia had previously taken the medication without any reported benefit.
For the reasons stated above, these facts do not give rise to a plausible claim
of deliberate indifference. Indeed, Mr. Bakambia’s exhibits indicate Dr.
Craane reached out to Dr. Todd again on November 4, immediately after
examining Mr. Bakambia. (See Dkt. No. 1-1 at 36.)
Similarly, Mr. Bakambia takes issue with Dr. Craane’s false statement
that Mr. Bakambia had previously tried Gabapentin without a beneficial
result. But, again, the complaint is devoid of facts that plausibly allege
anything near deliberate indifference to Mr. Bakambia’s medical needs.
Three other interactions with Dr. Craane warrant discussion, however.
First, Mr. Bakambia claims Dr. Craane failed to fill the Medrol and
Rizatriptan prescriptions recommended by the PA on November 27 and
instead locked them in his office over the long weekend. As an initial matter,
CASE 0:25-cv-00461-ECT-EMB Doc. 125 Filed 01/27/26 Page 34 of 53

35
Mr. Bakambia received these medications on November 28 after Nurse
William called the on-call doctor. But more fundamentally, the complaint
includes no allegations that Dr. Craane deliberately failed to process the
prescription even though he knew Mr. Bakambia had an urgent need for the
pills. Indeed, the allegations in the complaint undercut this conspiratorial
characterization—Dr. Craane stated that he did not process the prescription
on the 27th because he was waiting for the PA’s transcribed notes from the
appointment. (See Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 95–97; Dkt. No. 1-1 at 59 (noting Dr.
Craane “was awaiting the transcribed note from the neurosurgery clinic to
determine why this medication was recommended, for the utilization review
process”).) Although Mr. Bakambia may be unsatisfied with Dr. Craane’s
decision, using his independent medical judgment, to review the PA’s notes
before signing off on the prescription, that decision does not reflect deliberate
indifference to Mr. Bakambia’s needs. See Taylor v. Bowers, 966 F.2d 417,
421 (8th Cir. 1992) (“[A] prisoner’s mere difference of opinion over matters of
expert medical judgment or a course of medical treatment failed to rise to the
level of a constitutional violation.”); Cannon, 112 F.4th at 589 (recognizing
nurse’s ability to exercise independent medical judgment). Instead, the
record shows that Mr. Bakambia has received extensive, continuing
treatment for his pain from a variety of providers. To be sure, the facts
CASE 0:25-cv-00461-ECT-EMB Doc. 125 Filed 01/27/26 Page 35 of 53

36
alleged demonstrate the care has not been flawless, but that’s not what the
Eighth Amendment demands.
Finally, Mr. Bakambia claims he had two unsatisfactory appointments
with Dr. Craane. At the first, on November 4, Mr. Bakambia claims Dr.
Craane failed to conduct a physical exam, “refused to address [Mr.
Bakambia’s] sick call for stomach nerve pain,” and responded dishonestly to
Mr. Bakambia’s questions about his neurosurgery follow-up. (Dkt. No. 1
¶ 43.) Construing the facts in the light most favorable to Mr. Bakambia, it
appears Dr. Craane confused Mr. Bakambia’s neurosurgery treatment with
his neurology treatment. While this confusion could perhaps support a
finding of negligence, it does not demonstrate deliberate indifference. Indeed,
Dr. Craane agreed to “speak with the scheduler” in an attempt to “advance”
Mr. Bakambia’s next offsite appointment. (Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 45–46.)
And on December 2, Mr. Bakambia claims he had an unexpected
appointment at which Dr. Craane lied to him about needing the PA’s notes,
because he had processed prescriptions in the past without needing
transcriptions from the clinic. (See id. ¶¶ 96–97.) But as a medical provider,
Dr. Craane has discretion to understand the need for a medication before
dispensing it, particularly where nothing on the recommendation he received
from the PA indicated any urgency. (See Dkt. No. 1-1 at 52.) At the
December 2 appointment, Mr. Bakambia also asked Dr. Craane to produce
CASE 0:25-cv-00461-ECT-EMB Doc. 125 Filed 01/27/26 Page 36 of 53

37
proof that the November 27 appointment with the PA was a neurosurgery
appointment (as opposed to a neurology appointment). In response, Dr.
Craane produced a “prescription document” describing the appointment as a
“Neurosurgery Consult.” (Dkt. No. 1. ¶ 100.) Again, the facts at most
indicate a level of confusion about the specialized care Mr. Bakambia had
received but do not rise above a level of gross negligence and therefore cannot
sustain a claim for deliberate indifference. Rosenberg, 56 F.3d at 37. The
claim against Dr. Craane should be dismissed.
iii. Director Reid
Mr. Bakambia lodges a number of complaints against Director Reid.15
He claims she intentionally interfered with his neurosurgery appointment by
falsifying the neurosurgery follow-up document, confusing his neurology and
neurosurgery appointments, and eventually telling him she had no firsthand
knowledge about the neurosurgery appointment that was approved in
September. He also alleges she interfered with his Gabapentin prescription,
failed to provide notes from Dr. Todd, and provided insufficient responses to
his kites.
15 Although Director Hart has been substituted for Director Reid as to the official-
capacity claims, I refer to Director Reid for simplicity. For the reasons set forth in
this section, the official-capacity claims against Director Reid should also be
dismissed.
CASE 0:25-cv-00461-ECT-EMB Doc. 125 Filed 01/27/26 Page 37 of 53

38
Again, the crux of these complaints rests on conspiratorial
characterizations that are not supported by any other facts in the record.
(See, e.g., Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 115 (alleging Nurse Oberembt and Director Reid “had
a well-planned goal to deny and make vanished [sic] this neurosurgeon follow
up”).) The Court properly disregards these unsupported characterizations
and instead focuses on the facts alleged.
Those facts are insufficient to state a claim for deliberate indifference
against Director Reid. As above, the Court presumes that Mr. Bakambia
suffered from an objectively serious need—indeed, he had received extensive
treatment regarding his pain. But the allegations against Director Reid do
not plausibly allege that she knew Mr. Bakambia “face[d] a substantial risk
of serious harm and disregard[ed] that risk by failing to take reasonable
measures to abate it.” Schaub, 638 F.3d at 916 (citing Farmer, 511 U.S. at
847).
Mr. Bakambia repeatedly asked Director Reid what happened to the
neurosurgery appointment, and she repeatedly pointed him back to his
healthcare providers, noting that he had upcoming appointments scheduled
with them. And unlike in Ghebre, there are no allegations that Director Reid
was responsible for scheduling the neurosurgery follow-up appointment, nor
are there allegations that Mr. Bakambia asked her to do so. Cf. 2025 WL
2936880, at *15. Similarly, Mr. Bakambia asked Director Reid about what
CASE 0:25-cv-00461-ECT-EMB Doc. 125 Filed 01/27/26 Page 38 of 53

39
his doctors recommended as an alternative for Zanaflex, and she advised him
to ask them directly at his upcoming appointments. Finally, she responded
to the kites about Gabapentin, first explaining why it had been denied and
then corroborating Mr. Bakambia’s belief that he had not actually taken the
medication. This mistake about his history with Gabapentin is not, as
explained above, sufficient to show anything other than negligence. And
although Mr. Bakambia may have wanted Director Reid to take a more
proactive role in getting him the precise care he wanted, she did not violate
his constitutional rights by failing to do so. Accordingly, the claim against
her should be dismissed.
iv. Nurse William
Mr. Bakambia’s allegations about Nurse William cover a few different
interactions. First, he claims Nurse William advised an officer to have Mr.
Bakambia sign up for sick call on the morning of November 1 and lied about
not seeing the sick call slip Mr. Bakambia submitted on October 29. After
some back-and-forth, Nurse William eventually “placed a pass” for Mr.
Bakambia to be seen that same afternoon. (Id. ¶ 40.)
The second group of allegations relate to the prescription locked in Dr.
Craane’s office over the Thanksgiving weekend. Mr. Bakambia alleges Nurse
William didn’t reach out to him or the on-call doctor, even though “he would
have seen” the report issued by the CIT recommending Mr. Bakambia be
CASE 0:25-cv-00461-ECT-EMB Doc. 125 Filed 01/27/26 Page 39 of 53

40
seen on November 28. (Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 76.) Despite some apparent confusion
about the prescription, Mr. Bakambia was brought to see Nurse William, who
contacted the on-call doctor by 12:30pm that same day. The on-call doctor
immediately processed the prescription, and Mr. Bakambia received the
medication by the evening of November 28. Although Mr. Bakambia alleges
Nurse William lied and acted deceitfully, there are no facts supporting that
conclusion.
Finally, Mr. Bakambia alleges that Nurse Willliam responded to the
December 5 kite by improperly providing information about Mr. Bakambia’s
neurology appointment, as opposed to his neurosurgery appointment.
None of these interactions give rise to a claim of deliberate indifference.
Although Mr. Bakambia claims he “was in severe pain and needed emergency
medical attention” on November 1, (id. ¶ 40), there is no indication Nurse
William knew about the severity of Mr. Bakambia’s pain and disregarded it.
Instead, he made sure Mr. Bakambia was seen just a few hours after Nurse
William learned he needed medical attention.
Similarly, Mr. Bakambia admits Nurse William called the on-call
doctor by 12:30pm on November 28. Although a delay in medical treatment
can sometimes give rise to a deliberate indifference claim, the allegations
here are insufficient as a matter of law to state a claim. Cf Bakambia v.
Craane, 22-CV-2922 (PJS/DTS), 2024 WL 578886, at *15 (D. Minn. Jan. 5,
CASE 0:25-cv-00461-ECT-EMB Doc. 125 Filed 01/27/26 Page 40 of 53

41
2024) (reaching same conclusion where Mr. Bakambia’s pleading “fail[ed] to
allege any detrimental effect arising from delay in receiving treatment”),
report and recommendation adopted in relevant part, 22-CV-2922 (PJS/DTS),
2024 WL 620167 (D. Minn. Feb. 14, 2024), aff’d as modified, 24-1489, 2024
WL 3983194 (8th Cir. Aug. 29, 2024).
Finally, Nurse William’s response to the kite doesn’t reflect deliberate
indifference to a serious medical need. At most, it shows Nurse William
negligently confused Mr. Bakambia’s neurology appointment with his
neurologist appointment. Given the extensive nature of the care Mr.
Bakambia has received during his incarceration and the sheer volume of
complaints sent to prison officials, nothing about this mistake suggests Nurse
William acted with any ill will. The claim against Nurse William should
therefore be dismissed.
v. Nurse Petersen
The sole allegation against Nurse Petersen is insufficient to state a
claim of deliberate indifference. Mr. Bakambia alleges he sent a kite to
Nurse William requesting officers’ phone records. Nurse Petersen responded
to that kite by telling him that no such records existed and advising him to
“follow the chain of command if he didn’t like [that] response.” (Dkt. No. 1 ¶
86.) Mr. Bakambia’s dissatisfaction with this response does not a
constitutional violation make. There are no allegations that Nurse Petersen
CASE 0:25-cv-00461-ECT-EMB Doc. 125 Filed 01/27/26 Page 41 of 53

42
was aware of or disregarded any serious medical need. Thus, the claim
against Nurse Petersen should be dismissed for failure to state a claim.
vi. Nurse Oberembt
The allegations against Nurse Oberembt primarily involve what Mr.
Bakambia deems to be insufficient response to his kites. First, he claims she
sent “only the dictation” of his September 13 neurology appointment, and not
the “occipital nerve block procedure notes.” (Id. ¶ 19.) After Mr. Bakambia
pointed out that these notes were missing, Nurse Oberembt called Dr. Todd’s
office to request the notes and told Mr. Bakambia she didn’t have access to
any records between Dr. Todd and Drs. Craane and Shicker. (Id. ¶ 30.)
Similarly, Nurse Oberembt responded to the October 2 kite by
“producing a copy of request for neurosurgeon follow-up completed by Dr.
Craane on September 19, 2024.” (Id. ¶ 26.) Although the initial document
did not show who approved it, she produced a copy on October 22 showing
that Dr. Shicker had approved the appointment. (Id. ¶ 30.) Finally, she
responded to a kite because it involved “an offsite question,” but, Mr.
Bakambia alleges, “she did not address that offsite question.” (Id. ¶ 49.) The
exhibit Mr. Bakambia attached to his complaint undercuts that allegation,
however, as it shows Nurse Oberembt attached “the signed approval for a
CASE 0:25-cv-00461-ECT-EMB Doc. 125 Filed 01/27/26 Page 42 of 53

43
neurosurgery follow up [appointment], which also [sic] scheduled,” to her
response. (Dkt. No. 1-1 at 35.)
These allegations fall far short of stating a claim for deliberate
indifference under the Eighth Amendment. At most, these allegations
suggest Nurse Oberembt acted negligently by failing to provide full answers
to Mr. Bakambia’s questions the first time around. There are no allegations
that she ignored kites or provided wrong information. Although Mr.
Bakambia asserts that Nurse Oberembt was involved in the “denial of
plaintiff’s follow-up with his neurosurgeon,” the complaint and exhibits don’t
support this conclusory statement; in fact, they cut against it. (See Dkt. No.
1-1 at 33 (showing Mr. Bakambia’s assertion that Nurse Oberembt “is not in
charge of placing/reviewing or approving any offsite appointments”.)
Accordingly, Mr. Bakambia’s claim against Nurse Oberembt should be
dismissed.
vii. Warden Bolin
Mr. Bakambia’s allegations against Warden Bolin stem from his failure
to timely or satisfactorily respond to Mr. Bakambia’s grievances. For
example, the complaint alleges Warden Bolin directed Mr. Bakambia to
resubmit his grievance after obtaining certain records, even though Mr.
Bakambia had already made a records request. (See Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 56.) Mr.
Bakambia alleges Warden Bolin marked Mr. Bakambia’s November 19
CASE 0:25-cv-00461-ECT-EMB Doc. 125 Filed 01/27/26 Page 43 of 53

44
grievance as received on December 6 and improperly labeled it as a records
issue. (Id. ¶¶ 57, 63.) Similarly, he alleges Warden Bolin delayed entering
and responding to his December 9 complaint. (See id. ¶¶ 91–93.) He claims
that the delays in responding violated the prison’s policy. (See id. ¶ 92.)
These allegations, without more, are insufficient to state a claim of
deliberate indifference against Warden Bolin. First, there are no allegations
that Warden “Bolin w[as] even aware of [Mr. Bakambia’s] medical
conditions.” Ghebre, 2025 WL 2936880, at *14. And a prison official’s
“failure to process an inmate’s grievance is not a constitutional violation.”
Glover v. Rodriguez, 22-CV-1454 (NEB/TNL), 2024 WL 689752, at *3 (D.
Minn. Jan. 26, 2024) (citing Buckley v. Barlow, 997 F.2d 494, 495 (8th Cir.
1993) (per curiam)). Thus, the undersigned recommends Mr. Bakambia’s
deliberate indifference claim against Warden Bolin be dismissed.
viii. Officers Watt and Brosted
Mr. Bakambia next alleges that Officers Watt and Brosted were
deliberately indifferent to his medical needs on October 31. He claims they
refused his request to contact the watch commander, who could contact the
on-call doctor. (Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 36.) Instead, Officer Brosted told Mr. Bakambia
to rest, although neither officer documented this request on the roster shift
CASE 0:25-cv-00461-ECT-EMB Doc. 125 Filed 01/27/26 Page 44 of 53

45
report. Mr. Bakambia alleges that after complaining of pain again the next
morning, he was seen by 12:30pm and treated for acute pain.
Even assuming Mr. Bakambia was suffering from an objectively serious
medical need on the evening in question, he did not plead adequate facts to
suggest that Officers Watt and Brosted knew of the need and deliberately
disregarded it. The complaint includes no allegations that Mr. Bakambia
complained to these officers again after Officer Brosted told him to rest.
Instead, he alleges that he complained to another individual the following
morning and received treatment just over 12 hours after he made his first
complaint. And although Mr. Bakambia makes much of the failure to
document this interaction, nothing in the complaint suggests that failure led
to any adverse consequences with respect to his medical treatment.
Accordingly, he has not plausibly pled a claim against Officers Watt and
Brosted.
ix. Sergeant Anderson
Mr. Bakambia’s claim against Sergeant Anderson is similarly deficient.
He alleges Sergeant Anderson told Mr. Bakambia that he didn’t want to hear
about his pain complaints. He also alleges Sergeant Anderson refused to
CASE 0:25-cv-00461-ECT-EMB Doc. 125 Filed 01/27/26 Page 45 of 53

46
activate an ICS because he “believ[ed] Nurse William” over Mr. Bakambia
with respect to the prescription in Dr. Craane’s office. (Id. ¶ 88.)
A single failure to activate an ICS does not demonstrate deliberate
indifference to a serious medical need, particularly where the complaint
alleges the failure stemmed from a mistaken belief that Mr. Bakambia’s
prescription had already been processed. Further, to the extent Sergeant
Anderson’s decision delayed treatment, Mr. Bakambia admits he was treated
by 12:30pm the same day and pleads no facts suggesting the delay caused
detrimental effects. Accordingly, the Court should dismiss the claim against
Sergeant Anderson.16
C. Retaliatory Treatment
Next, Mr. Bakambia alleges the Centurion Defendants and Director
Reid retaliated against him for filing a § 1983 claim and grievances. Neither
Mr. Bakambia nor the Defendants provide much specificity about the legal
basis for this claim.17 Based on the allegations, the Court construes it as a §
16 Because Mr. Bakambia has failed to plausibly plead a constitutional
violation against any Defendant, the Court does not separately address DOC
Defendants’ arguments that portions of the claims are barred by qualified or
sovereign immunity.
17 For example, the DOC Defendants cite a case that involved retaliatory
discipline, but Mr. Bakambia’s complaint does not include any allegation
about discipline. (See Dkt. No. 36 at 15 (citing Haynes v. Stephenson, 588
F.3d 1152, 1155 (8th Cir. 2009).) Regardless, the DOC Defendants argue that
CASE 0:25-cv-00461-ECT-EMB Doc. 125 Filed 01/27/26 Page 46 of 53

47
1983 claim of First Amendment retaliation. Cf. Ghebre, 2025 WL 2936880, at
*10 (analyzing same claim on similar facts).
To state a claim for First Amendment retaliation, Mr. Bakambia must
allege facts sufficient to plausibly show “(1) [he] engaged in protected activity;
(2) [Defendants] caused an injury to [him] that would chill a person of
ordinary firmness from continuing the activity; (3) and a causal connection
between the retaliatory animus and injury.” Id. (quoting Quraishi v. St.
Charles Cnty., Missouri, 986 F.3d 831, 837 (8th Cir. 2021)) (alterations in
original).
Mr. Bakambia alleges that he filed another lawsuit on September 13,
2024, against the Centurion Defendants, Director Reid, Warden Bolin, and
Commissioner Schnell. (Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 127.) He also filed a host of grievances,
as detailed above. He claims that Drs. Shicker and Craane and Director Reid
retaliated against him by denying him Gabapentin, falsifying his medical
records, and failing to process his prescription before the Thanksgiving break.
Even assuming Mr. Bakambia has plausibly pled the first and second
elements of a retaliation claim, the complaint is devoid of any factual
the complaint lacks any allegations of causation tying the filing of another
lawsuit to the alleged interference with his medical care. (See id. at 15–16.)
The Centurion Defendants give the analysis an even lighter touch, arguing
the complaint includes “non-specific allegation and conclusory pleading” as to
his claims of “retaliation.” (Dkt. No. 96 at 6–7.) I ultimately agree with these
conclusions, despite a different formulation of the claim.
CASE 0:25-cv-00461-ECT-EMB Doc. 125 Filed 01/27/26 Page 47 of 53

48
allegations supporting an inference of causation. At most, Mr. Bakambia
seems to rely on unsupported statements of collusion and the temporal
proximity between the filing of the previous lawsuit and the alleged
interference with his medical care. But conclusory statements and temporal
proximity, without more, are not enough to plead a retaliation claim. See
Ghebre, 2025 WL 2936880, at *10 (citing Bakambia v. Craane, No. 22-CV-
2922 (PJS/DTS), 2024 WL 578886, at *11 (D. Minn. Jan. 5, 2024), report and
recommendation adopted, 2024 WL 620167 (D. Minn. Feb. 14, 2024), aff’d in
relevant part, 2024 WL 3983194 (8th Cir. Aug. 29, 2024)). Accordingly, this
claim should be dismissed without prejudice.
D. State-Law Claims
Counts III-V of Mr. Bakambia’s Complaint allege violations of state
law, sounding in negligence. 18 Because all of Mr. Bakambia’s federal claims
are subject to dismissal and there is no independent ground for the Court to
exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over the remaining claims, I recommend
the Court decline to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Johnson v. City of Shorewood, 360 F.3d 810, 819
(8th Cir. 2004) (“[I]n the usual case in which all federal-law claims are
18 Mr. Bakambia appears to agree that Count III, Ministerial Neglect –
Improper and Inadequate Medical Care, sounds in negligence. (See Dkt. No.
117 at 24, 42.)
CASE 0:25-cv-00461-ECT-EMB Doc. 125 Filed 01/27/26 Page 48 of 53

49
eliminated before trial, the balance of factors to be considered under the
pendent jurisdiction doctrine . . . will point toward declining to exercise
jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.” (quoting Carnegie-Mellon
Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988) (alteration in original))).
In addition to asking the Court not to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over the state law claims, the Centurian Defendants also make a
merits argument as to Count III. The Centurion Defendants argue this claim
is subject to dismissal, because it is akin to medical malpractice claim and
Mr. Bakambia failed to submit an expert review affidavit with his complaint,
as required by Minn. Stat. § 145.682. The DOC Defendants do not make
substantive arguments on any of the state-law claims. Because I do not
recommend the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law
claims, I decline to address the Centurian Defendants’ alternative argument.
E. Preliminary Injunction
Finally, in his motion for preliminary injunction, Mr. Bakambia asks
this Court to order the defendants “to immediately provide treatment for [his]
chronic nerve pain” and to “immediately send [him] to [his] follow-up”
appointments with neurosurgeon Dr. Richard Gregory and neurologist Dr.
Todd. (Dkt. No. 23 at 1.) Mr. Bakambia has the burden to show his
entitlement to a preliminary injunction. See Watkins Inc. v. Lewis, 346 F.3d
841, 844 (8th Cir. 2003).
CASE 0:25-cv-00461-ECT-EMB Doc. 125 Filed 01/27/26 Page 49 of 53

50
In his reply (Dkt. No. 58), Mr. Bakambia alleges new facts not present
in his complaint. (See, e.g., Dkt. No. 58 ¶ 5 (discussing complaint to medical
board); id. ¶ 7 (discussing denial of ADA accommodations); id. ¶ 16
(discussing kites sent after this action was filed).) But Mr. Bakambia cannot
meet his burden by alleging new facts not in the complaint. See Barnett v.
Hill, 1:18-CV-238 AGF, 2019 WL 2579460, at *2 n.1 (E.D. Mo. June 24, 2019)
(“Assertions that do not appear in the complaint cannot form the basis for a
preliminary injunction.” (citing Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th
Cir. 1994))).
When addressing a request for preliminary injunctive relief, the Court
must weight four factors: “(1) the threat of irreparable harm to the movant;
(2) the state of the balance between this harm and the injury that granting
the injunction will inflict on other parties litigant; (3) the probability that
movant will succeed on the merits; and (4) the public interest.” Dataphase
Sys., Inc. v. C L Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 113 (8th Cir. 1981). The most
important Dataphase factor is the likelihood of success on the merits,
although no single factor is determinative. Craig v. Simon, 980 F.3d 614, 617
(8th Cir. 2020); Home Instead, Inc. v. Florance, 721 F.3d 494, 497 (8th Cir.
2013) (citing Barrett v. Claycomb, 705 F.3d 315, 320 (8th Cir. 2013).
As detailed above, this action is recommended for dismissal on the
merits. Accordingly, I recommend denial of Mr. Bakambia’s motion for
CASE 0:25-cv-00461-ECT-EMB Doc. 125 Filed 01/27/26 Page 50 of 53

51
preliminary injunction as moot. Alternatively, the third factor weighs
strongly against Mr. Bakambia.
Further, none of the other Dataphase factors weigh in his favor. Mr.
Bakambia has not demonstrated the threat of irreparable harm, which
requires a “show[ing] ‘that a cognizable danger—more than a mere
possibility—exists of a future violation.’” Bakambia v. Schnell, No. 20-CV-
1434-NEB-KMM, 2021 WL 1723747, at *4 (D. Minn. Mar. 11, 2021) (quoting
C.H. v. Sullivan, 718 F. Supp. 726, 730 (D. Minn. 1989)), report and
recommendation adopted, No. 20-CV-1434 (NEB/KMM), 2021 WL 2221622
(D. Minn. June 2, 2021). Mr. Bakambia has received ongoing specialized care
in response to his chronic health issues. And he has been moved to a
different facility, making future danger wholly speculative. (See Dkt. No. 88.)
Similarly, neither the balance of harms nor the public interest favor
Mr. Bakambia. District courts are “not particularly well suited to making
decisions regarding what specific medic[al treatment] is most appropriate,”
particularly where “the specific form of treatment necessarily would interfere
in the affairs of prison administration.” Holmes v. Minnesota DOC, 23-CV-
2969 (PJS/DJF), 2023 WL 11841211, at *5 (D. Minn. Dec. 13, 2023), report
and recommendation adopted in relevant part, 2024 WL 2956632 (D. Minn.
June 12, 2024); see also Goff v. Harper, 60 F.3d 518, 520 (8th Cir. 1995)
(quoting Rogers v. Scurr, 676 F.2d 1211, 1214 (8th Cir. 1982)) (“[J]udicial
CASE 0:25-cv-00461-ECT-EMB Doc. 125 Filed 01/27/26 Page 51 of 53

52
restraint is especially called for in dealing with the complex and intractable
problems of prison administration”).
Thus, I recommend Mr. Bakambia’s motion for preliminary injunction
be denied as moot or, alternatively, denied on the merits.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, and upon careful consideration of all of the
parties’ submissions, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
1. The DOC Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 35) be
GRANTED.
2. The Centurion Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 78) be
GRANTED.
3. Plaintiff Marc Bakambia’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt.
No. 23) be DENIED as moot.
4. This action be DISMISSED.
Dated: January 27, 2026 s/Elsa M. Bullard
Elsa M. Bullard
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE
Filing Objections: This Report and Recommendation is not an order or
judgment of the District Court and is therefore not appealable directly to the
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Under Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), “a party may file and serve specific written
objections to a magistrate judge’s proposed finding and recommendations
CASE 0:25-cv-00461-ECT-EMB Doc. 125 Filed 01/27/26 Page 52 of 53

53
within 14 days after being served a copy” of the Report and Recommendation.
A party may respond to those objections within 14 days after being served a
copy of the objections. See Local Rule 72.2(b)(2). All objections and responses
must comply with the word or line limits set forth in Local Rule 72.2(c).
CASE 0:25-cv-00461-ECT-EMB Doc. 125 Filed 01/27/26 Page 53 of 53