Bakambia v. Hart et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Marc Amouri Bakambia,
Plaintiff,
v.
Alexandra Hart, in her official capacity,
Kathy Reid, in her individual capacity,
Chrstine Oberembt, in her individual and
official capacities, and
Michael Oliveras, in his individual capacity,
Defendants.
Case No. 24-cv-3653 (LMP/DJF)
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Marc Amouri Bakambia’s Motion for a More
Definite Answer to Complaint; and Motion for Other Relief Regarding Adequate Access to Law
Library (“Motion”) (ECF No. 107). Mr. Bakambia is a prisoner who was recently transferred to the
Minnesota Correctional Facility-Lino Lakes (“MCF-Lino Lakes”) from the Minnesota Correctional
Facility-Stillwater (“MCF-Stillwater”). 	(ECF No. 108 at 1-2.) 	Defendants either are or were
Minnesota Department of Corrections employees stationed at MCF-Stillwater. (ECF No. 1 at 10.)
The Motion asks the Court to: (1.) direct Defendants to amend their answer because Mr. Bakambia
believes it is evasive; and (2.) order that he be provided “two hours per week for law library in order
to allow him to prepare for this case.” (ECF No. 107.) For the reasons stated below, the Court
denies the Motion.
Mr. Bakambia wants Defendants to amend their answer pursuant to Rule 12(e) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, but his argument is meritless. (ECF No. 108 at 3.) Rule 12(e) only applies
to a pleading “to which a responsive pleading is allowed.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). An answer is not a
pleading that calls for a responsive pleading, unless the Court orders a reply, see Fed. R. Civ. P.
CASE 0:24-cv-03653-LMP-DJF Doc. 115 Filed 10/22/25 Page 1 of 3

7(a)(7). The Court has not ordered a reply, therefore, Mr. Bakambia’s reliance on Rule 12(e) is
misplaced, and the Court denies his request.
The Court also denies Mr. Bakambia’s request for an order that he receive more time in the
law library. Mr. Bakambia states he is limited to 30-minute windows of time for the law library,
which he does not believe is adequate to allow him to litigate this matter. (ECF No. 108 at 2.) He
also states these 30-minute windows include the time it takes to receive a pass from the living unit
staff and to walk to the law library. (ECF No. 109 at 1-2.) Mr. Bakambia further states he is limited
to law library time once “a week, or other week or even per month.” (Id. at 1.) The manner MCF-
Lino Lakes allocates law library time is a matter of prison administration. The Court therefore must
act with restraint in deciding whether to compel the prison to change how it operates. See Goff v.
Harper, 60 F.3d 518, 520 (8th Cir. 1995). Mr. Bakambia’s own exhibits show that he has been
scheduled for three separate law library time slots within a week of each other. (ECF No. 114 at 1-
5.) Moreover, he received an hour-long time slot the following week, and the law librarian told Mr.
Bakambia that he may request hour-long time slots in the future. (Id. at 7.) Thus, the evidence in
record shows that Mr. Bakambia’s situation is not as dire as he believes it to be and does not warrant
Court intervention. That being said, if Mr. Bakambia is unable to meet a court-ordered deadline
because of a lack of law library availability, he may file a motion requesting additional time and
stating the reasons why an extension is warranted.1
1 Before filing such a motion, he must meet-and-confer in good faith with opposing counsel
about the motion, as he did for this Motion.
CASE 0:24-cv-03653-LMP-DJF Doc. 115 Filed 10/22/25 Page 2 of 3

ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and on all the files, records, and proceedings here, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED THAT Plaintiff Marc Amouri Bakambia’s Motion for a More Definite Answer to
Complaint; and Motion for Other Relief Regarding Adequate Access to Law Library (ECF No. 107)
is DENIED.
Dated: October 22, 2025 	s/ Dulce J. Foster
Dulce J. Foster
United States Magistrate Judge
CASE 0:24-cv-03653-LMP-DJF Doc. 115 Filed 10/22/25 Page 3 of 3