Wizinsky v. State
957 N.W.2d 466
| Neb. | 2021Background
- May 10, 2015: Violent riots at Tecumseh State Correctional Institution (TSCI); two fatalities. Appellant John Wizinsky was a protective-custody inmate with PTSD and diabetes.
- During the riot command staff directed evacuations and other tactical responses under the facility "Incident Action Plan;" one evacuation decision exposed protective-custody inmates to mixing with general population to avoid smoke/fire.
- Wizinsky alleged negligence under Nebraska's State Tort Claims Act (STCA): improper commingling, inadequate staffing, failure to prevent/manage the riot, and harm (exacerbated PTSD; missed insulin dose).
- Trial evidence: State expert testified responses met correctional standards; accreditation reports and testimony supported that staffing met operational requirements on the day.
- District court (bench trial) ruled for the State, holding Wizinsky’s claims barred by the STCA discretionary function exception and alternatively that he failed to prove proximate legal injury. Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed on discretionary-function grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the STCA discretionary-function exception bar Wizinsky's claims? | Wizinsky: staff followed policies and any deviations were ministerial or negligent, so exception should not apply. | State: actions were discretionary policy/tactical judgments under the Action Plan and thus immune. | Exception applies; State immune; court did not reach merits. |
| Were staffing levels and facility capacity non-discretionary negligence? | Wizinsky: staffing was insufficient and facility over capacity, causing risk. | State: staffing/capacity are administrative policy decisions and evidence showed compliance with requirements. | Staffing and capacity decisions are discretionary and barred by the exception. |
| Were evacuation and tactical response decisions ministerial or negligent? | Wizinsky: officials should have kept protective custody separate and ensured medical care. | State: minute-to-minute tactical choices during a riot required judgment under the Action Plan and conformed to accepted correctional practice. | Tactical evacuation/response decisions are classic discretionary judgments and are shielded. |
| Did Wizinsky prove legal injury/proximate cause from negligence? | Wizinsky: PTSD exacerbation and missed insulin dose caused harm. | State: alternative defense that evidence did not prove proximate causation or lasting harm. | Court relied on immunity; district court also found failure to prove proximate legal injury. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dean v. State, 288 Neb. 530 (standard of review for STCA factual findings)
- Mays v. Midnite Dreams, 300 Neb. 485 (bench-trial evidentiary review principles)
- Lambert v. Lincoln Public Schools, 306 Neb. 192 (two-part discretionary-function analysis)
- Holloway v. State, 293 Neb. 12 (focus on nature of conduct for discretionary-function exception)
- Kimminau v. City of Hastings, 291 Neb. 133 (judgmental decisions within broad regulatory frameworks are discretionary)
- Buchanan v. United States, 915 F.2d 969 (response strategies to uprisings/riots are discretionary)
- Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312 (prison internal security decisions are normally left to prison administrators)