Summary
The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed a judgment for the State in John M. Wizinsky’s negligence action arising from the 2015 riots at the Tecumseh State Correctional Institution. The court held that the discretionary function exception to Nebraska’s State Tort Claims Act barred claims concerning prison staffing, capacity, evacuation, security-force allocation, and emergency-response decisions. Because sovereign immunity applied, the court did not reach the merits of the negligence claims.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the discretionary function exception to Nebraska's State Tort Claims Act barred Wizinsky's claims concerning prison staffing, operational capacity, riot response, evacuation, security deployment, and protection of inmates.
- Whether the district court erred in finding that Wizinsky failed to prove his negligence claims.
Holdings
- The State Tort Claims Act's discretionary function exception bars claims based on discretionary decisions involving prison staffing, operational capacity, allocation of security forces, evacuation methods, retreat, emergency-response deployment, and other tactical decisions made during the riot.
- Because the discretionary function exception barred Wizinsky's claims, the court did not reach the substantive negligence issues.
Key quotations
“The purpose of the discretionary function exception of the STCA is to prevent judicial “second-guessing” of legislative and administrative decisions grounded in social, economic, and political policy through the medium of action in tort.” (at 787)
“In determining whether the discretionary function exception applies, thereby shielding the actor from liability, the focus is on the nature of the conduct, rather than the status of the actor.” (at 787-788)
“First, the court must consider whether the action is a matter of choice for the acting political subdivision or employee. Second, if the court concludes that the challenged conduct involves an element of judgment, it must then determine whether that judgment is of the kind that the discretionary function exception was designed to shield.” (at 788)
“Prison officials’ minute-to-minute decision making in the chaotic circumstances of a riot is a classic example of an activity requiring the exercise of discretion . . . .” (at 790)
Factual background
John M. Wizinsky was an inmate in protective custody at the Tecumseh State Correctional Institution during violent riots on May 10, 2015. He alleged that the State negligently understaffed the prison, failed to prevent or adequately respond to the riots, and improperly commingled protective-custody inmates with general-population inmates during an evacuation, exacerbating his post-traumatic stress disorder and affecting his medical needs. Prison officials made emergency decisions concerning staffing, evacuation, deployment of response teams, and allocation of security resources while fires, assaults, hostage situations, and other disorder were occurring throughout the facility.
Procedural history
Wizinsky sued the State under the State Tort Claims Act, alleging that the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services negligently handled staffing, security, evacuation, and inmate protection during the 2015 riots at the Tecumseh State Correctional Institution. After a four-day bench trial, the Lancaster County District Court found for the State, concluding both that Wizinsky failed to prove negligence and proximate legal injury and that sovereign immunity barred the claims under the discretionary function exception. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed without reaching the substantive negligence claims.