Wizinsky v. State, 308 Neb. 778

On May 10, 2015, violent riots erupted at Tecumseh State Correctional Institution (TSCI); two people died and multiple housing units were affected.
John Wizinsky, an inmate in protective custody with preexisting PTSD and diabetes, was exposed to smoke and violence and was temporarily commingled with general-population inmates during an evacuation.
Wizinsky alleged negligent staffing, failure to prevent/protect during the riot, and resulting exacerbation of his medical and psychological conditions (including a missed insulin dose that was later caught up).
TSCI relied on its Incident Action Plan and emergency response teams; command staff made on-the-spot tactical decisions (evacuation, redeployment of staff) under chaotic conditions.
The district court found for the State, concluding Wizinsky failed to prove negligence and that his claims were barred by the State Tort Claims Act (STCA) discretionary function exception; the Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the STCA discretionary-function exception bars Wizinsky's claims	Wizinsky: staffing/evacuation choices were governed by policies and thus not discretionary; exception should not apply	State: staffing, capacity, and riot-response decisions involve policy judgment and situational discretion	Held: Exception applies — decisions during the riot were discretionary and shield the State from liability
Whether Wizinsky proved negligence/proximate cause	Wizinsky: insufficient staffing and improper commingling exposed him to harm and worsened PTSD/medical risks	State: staffing met requirements, actions complied with correctional standards, and no legal injury/causal negligence was shown	Held: Court did not need to reach merits because immunity barred the claim; district court also found no negligence proven

Dean v. State, 288 Neb. 530, 849 N.W.2d 138 (Neb. 2014) (standard for STCA fact findings)
Mays v. Midnite Dreams, 300 Neb. 485, 915 N.W.2d 71 (Neb. 2018) (bench-trial evidence review principles)
Lambert v. Lincoln Public Schools, 306 Neb. 192, 945 N.W.2d 84 (Neb. 2020) (two-part test for discretionary-function exception)
Holloway v. State, 293 Neb. 12, 875 N.W.2d 435 (Neb. 2016) (discretionary-function focuses on nature of conduct)
Kimminau v. City of Hastings, 291 Neb. 133, 864 N.W.2d 399 (Neb. 2015) (example of judgmental decision within broad regulatory framework)
Buchanan v. U.S., 915 F.2d 969 (5th Cir. 1990) (prison uprising response strategies are discretionary)
Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312 (U.S. 1986) (prison internal security decisions ordinarily left to administrators)