Skip navigation

Nebraska District Court Rules on Medical Deliberate Indifference Case

Nebraska District Court Rules on Medical Deliberate Indifference Case

On November 13, 2013, the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska denied in part and granted in part motions proffered by three different groups of defendants in a single cause that arose from a protracted contention between a Nebraska state prisoner and prison medical and administrative authorities. After a 2002 sexual assault perpetrated upon him by other prisoners, James Saylor was denied treatment for his post-traumatic stress disorder, until he prevailed in a tort claim against the state to receive treatment. He was treated for PTSD from 2005 until 2010, when the doctor who diagnosed and administered psychiatric care was terminated from employment with defendant Correct Care Solutions, LLC, (CorrectCare) the health care provider for the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services (DCS). With the doctor’s employment terminated, according to the plaintiff, CorrectCare and other principals in the case resumed their pattern of medical deliberate indifference, the basis of Saylor’s previous tort action.

Saylor brought the instant §1983 claim seeking damages and injunctive relief in 2012, naming the State of Nebraska, nine individuals employed in medical or administrative positions with DCS, CorrectCare, and Dr. Natalie Baker in her individual capacity, as defendants. Claims included violations of Saylor’s First, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights with respect to his housing and medical care and treatment in prison. Saylor argued that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs in refusing his medical and psychiatric care for PTSD and discontinuing his medication. Saylor also argued that the defendants retaliated against him for filing his legal claims, claiming they transferred him and kept him in administrative segregation for years without a review, and that once the doctor’s employment was terminated, the defendants deliberatively returned to the pattern of behavior that precipitated the first tort case.

Defendant CorrectCare argued that Saylor failed to allege any constitutional violations or any facts that allege said violations were the result of CorrectCare policy. The State defendants argued that plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and that the state was protected by sovereign immunity. Dr. Baker asserted that Saylor failed to allege facts that implicated her personally, especially with respect to deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs.

The Court pointed out that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure only require a short and plain claim; one that shows the pleader is entitled to relief and gives the defendants fair notice. The Court outlined the parameters of viability for constitutional claims against persons acting under the color of state law, and what must be shown for sovereign immunity. The Court noted both monetary and injunctive avenues of relief, stating that the plaintiff alleged sufficient discoverable action in support of his argument.

The Court found that the State of Nebraska and DCS were entitled to sovereign immunity against claims naming state actors acting according to official policy, but left open claims against persons acting in their individual capacity, denying individual dismissals. The Court also denied Dr. Baker’s and CorrecCare’s motions to dismiss. See: Saylor v. State of Nebraska, U.S.D.C. (D.C. Neb.), Case no. 4:12-cv-03115-JFB-TDT.

Related legal case

Saylor v. State of Nebraska