United States District Court, D. Nebraska
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
F. Bataillon Senior United States District Judge.
matter is before the court on the plaintiff's motion to
remand, Filing No. 12, and the defendants State of
Nebraska's and Nebraska Department of Correctional
Services' motion for sanctions, Filing No. 6. This action
was removed from the District Court of Lancaster County,
Nebraska, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1367,
1441, and 1446.
plaintiff is a Nebraska inmate who has been incarcerated by
the Nebraska Department of Corrections for many years. The
present action is one of several challenges he has made to
the conditions of his confinement and his medical treatment.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
(“Eighth Circuit”) summarized the facts as
In 2002, while a prisoner at the Nebraska State Penitentiary
(NSP), Saylor was allegedly attacked, beaten, and raped by
other inmates. In 2005 Saylor was diagnosed with
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) as a result of the 2002
attack, and he began seeing Dr. Glen Christensen, a
psychiatrist who contracted with NDCS. Saylor saw Dr.
Christensen monthly for treatment. In April 2005, Saylor
filed a complaint in state court alleging that the State of
Nebraska and NDCS failed to protect him from the assault and
failed to properly treat him after the assault. The trial was
held in 2009, and in 2010 the state court entered an order in
favor of Saylor, finding that the staff was negligent in
failing to provide him with reasonably adequate protection
from the 2002 assault. The court also found that Saylor
received inadequate medical treatment from Dr. Kamal from
2002 to 2005. Saylor was awarded $250, 000 in damages.
Saylor v. Nebraska, 812 F.3d 637, 641 (8th Cir.),
as amended (Mar. 4, 2016), cert. denied sub
nom. Saylor v. Kohl, 137 S.Ct. 161 (2016)
(collectively, “Saylor I”). In the state
court action, the court also found, however, that the
Nebraska Department of Corrections had provided medically
appropriate care from and after March 31, 2010. Saylor v.
State of Nebraska, No. CI 05-1597 (March 31, 2010);
see Saylor v. Kohl, No. 4:12cv3115 (D. Neb.), Filing
No. 143-18, Index of Evid., Ex. 16, State Court Decision at
2012, Saylor filed an action in federal district court.
See Saylor I, No. 4:12-CV-3115 (D. Neb.). His action
in federal court was centered on the allegation that the
defendants reverted to providing him the type of inadequate
medical care he had received prior to November 2005
subsequent to the state court decision. Id., Filing
No. 113, Second Amended Complaint at 15. He asserted
violations of his First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment
rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, contending, inter alia,
that the Department of Corrections' failure to continue
the treatment plan approved in his state tort action amounted
to deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.
Id. at 26-27. He also asserted a state law claim for
negligence. Id. at 27-28; see also id.,
Filing No. 124, Memorandum and Order at 1-5; Saylor v.
Nebraska, No. 4:12cv3115, 2013 WL 6036630, *2-3 (D. Neb.
Nov. 13, 2013) (summarizing the plaintiff's allegations
in Saylor I).
action, defendants Nebraska Department of Correctional
Services, State of Nebraska, Natalie Baker, M.D., Dennis
Bakewell, Fred Britten, Robert Houston, Mohammad Kamal, M.D.,
Randy Kohl, M.D., Mark Weilage, Ph.D., and Cameron White,
Ph.D. (hereinafter, “the state defendants”) moved
to dismiss the plaintiff's negligence claim on the ground
of sovereign immunity. Saylor I, No. 4:12cv3115,
Filing No. 116. The court granted the motion, finding that
the State of Nebraska had not waived its sovereign immunity
to suits for negligence in federal court through the State
Tort Claims Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 81-8, 209.
Id., Filing No. 124, Memorandum and Order at 6;
Saylor I, No. 4:12cv3115, 2013 WL 6036630 at *4. The
court found the Nebraska courts have exclusive jurisdiction
over all tort claims against the State of Nebraska, its
agencies, or its employees. Id. at 7; 2013 WL
6036630 at *4. The court also found Saylor's §
1983 claims for damages against the individual defendants in
their official capacities were barred by sovereign immunity.
Id. at 10. The court denied the defendants'
motions to dismiss the § 1983 claims against the
individual defendants in their individual capacities and
claims for equitable relief. Id. at 12.
court later denied the state defendants' motion for
summary judgment based on qualified immunity. Saylor
I, No. 4:12CV3115, Filing No. 178, Memorandum and Order
at 22-27; Saylor I, No. 4:12CV3115, 2014 WL 7335742
at *11-*13 (D. Neb. Dec. 22, 2014). Following an
interlocutory appeal, the Eighth Circuit reversed.
See Saylor I, 812 F.3d at 642. The Eighth
Circuit found no deprivation of Saylor's First,
Fourteenth, or Eighth Amendment rights and remanded the
action “with directions to dismiss [the state
defendants] and for the entry of any further necessary orders
concerning the non-appealing parties” consistent with
its ruling. Id. at 647.
remand, this court dismissed the plaintiff's claims
against the state defendants, dismissed the plaintiff's
constitutional claims against the non-appealing parties
(defendants Natalie Baker, M.D., and Correct Care Solutions)
and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the
plaintiff's state law negligence claim. Saylor
I, No. 4:12CV3115, Filing No. 222, Memorandum and Order
at 5-9; Saylor v. Kohl, 2016 WL 8201925, at *3-*5
(D. Neb. Nov. 28, 2016).
later filed a motion under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
59 and 60 to vacate the court's order dismissing the
action, reopen the case, and grant leave to file a third
amended complaint. Id., Filing No. 225. The attached
proposed third amended complaint restated the plaintiff's
earlier claims, added some factual allegations, and asserted
a claim for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act
(“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq.
Id., Filing No. 225-1, proposed third amended
complaint. The court denied the motion, finding plaintiff had
not met the standards for relief under Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 59(e) and 60(b). Id., Filing No. 230,
Memorandum and Order; Saylor I, 2017 WL 486921, *1
(D. Neb. Feb. 6, 2017). Neither this court nor the Eighth
Circuit ever addressed the merits of Saylor's negligence
original complaint filed in state court, the plaintiff
alleged both state and federal claims against the same
defendants involved in Saylor I. Filing No. 1-1,
Complaint. The original complaint appears to be substantially
similar, if not identical, to the proposed third amended
complaint submitted in the federal case. The state defendants
removed the action to this court, basing jurisdiction on a
federal question. Filing No. 1, Notice of Removal. After the
action was removed to this court, the state defendants filed
a motion to dismiss based on res judicata and the plaintiff
amended his complaint.Filin ...