Saylor v. State

315 Neb. 285

995 N.W.2d 192

James SAYLOR, appellant,

v.STATE of Nebraska et al., appellees.

No. S-22-822.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

Filed September 22, 2023

Joshua D. Barber, of Barber & Barber, P.C., L.L.O., Lincoln, for appellant.

Michael T. Hilgers, Attorney General, Eric J. Hamilton, Solicitor General, and Christian Edmonds, for appellees.

Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, and Funke, JJ.

Cassel, J.

INTRODUCTION

James Saylor, an inmate at the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services, appeals from an order dismissing his lawsuit under the State Tort Claims Act (STCA), ¹ based on a finding that Saylor's action was barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion. This appeal implicates two actions filed by Saylor under the STCA, which this court previously heard separately in Saylor v. State ( Saylor I ) ² and Saylor v. State ( Saylor II ). ³ We conclude that Saylor could have, and should have, brought all of his claims in the first action, but failed to do so. Therefore, claim preclusion applies. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

Saylor filed two cases against the State, district court cases Nos. CI 17-1986 (the "first action," addressed by this court in Saylor I ) and CI 17-2205 (the "second action," addressed in Saylor II ). We recite the procedural histories of these cases as relevant to the instant appeal. A more detailed background is provided by our opinions in the prior appeals. ⁴

INITIAL PROCEEDINGS

On May 30, 2017, Saylor filed the first action, alleging, in relevant part, a negligence claim against the State.

Seventeen days later, on June 16, 2017, Saylor filed the second action. The initial complaint in the second action indicated that it was premised on "[Saylor's] multiple claims for damages according to statute, including, but not necessarily limited to," a tort claim Saylor filed with the State Claims Board in June 2016.

Several months later, on November 21, 2017, Saylor served the State in the first action, and the State removed that case—which asserted both state and federal claims—to federal court.

While the first action was pending in federal court, Saylor filed an amended complaint in the second action, alleging 16 causes of action under the STCA. Each cause of action was apparently premised on a separate tort claim filed with the State Claims Board in either June 2016 or February 2017. The amended complaint alleged that each tort claim was ripe for suit, either because the State Claims Board did not enter a final disposition within 6 months of the tort claim's filing or because the board entered a final disposition of the tort claim on June 15, 2017—the day before Saylor filed the second action.

The State filed a motion to dismiss the second action, alleging that the tort claims failed to comply with the claim presentment provisions of the STCA. ⁵ The hearing on the State's motion to dismiss was stayed pending the anticipated remand of the first action to the district court from federal court.

After the federal court remanded the first action to the district court, Saylor filed an amended complaint in that action, and the State filed a motion to dismiss it.

The State also filed a motion to consolidate the two actions. In support, the State alleged, in part, that the primary claims in the second action "overlap substantially" the first action and that the parties and the court would benefit from streamlined proceedings.

The district court treated the motion as limited consolidation for progression and trial, sustained that motion, and set a hearing on the State's motions to dismiss. The court noted:

Both [the first action] and [the second action] involve Saylor as [plaintiff] and the State as [defendant]. They are companion cases. The motion to consolidate the cases for progression and trial is sustained.... Both cases will remain open and pleadings and filings, as needed, will be made in the respective cases.

The court held a hearing on the motions to dismiss in both actions and received evidence. The parties agreed that the motions would be considered as motions for summary judgment.

JUDGMENTS ON CONVERTED MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

The district court sustained both motions and entered two judgments, styled as orders, which appear on separate dockets. One judgment dismissed the first action with prejudice, finding that it was barred by the limitations period set forth in the STCA. ⁶ The other judgment dismissed the second action with prejudice, finding that Saylor had failed to comply with the presuit claim presentment provisions of the STCA. ⁷ Saylor timely appealed from both judgments.

DIRECT APPEALS

In separate opinions, this court considered the district court's judgments dismissing Saylor's two actions. In Saylor I , we agreed with the district court that the first action was time barred by the limitations period in the STCA and affirmed dismissal. We specifically stated: "The 2017 complaint appears to allege the same claims of negligent medical care that Saylor presented to the State Claims Board [in the claim filed on September 14, 2012], and no one contends otherwise." ⁸ It was undisputed that Saylor had failed to file suit within 6 months of the denial of the 2012 tort claim on October 19, 2012.

In Saylor II , we held that Saylor's tort claims in the second action substantially complied with the claim presentment provisions of the STCA and thus were not barred on that ground. Accordingly, we reversed the district court's judgment and remanded the instant cause to that court for further proceedings.

PROCEEDINGS AFTER REMAND

Following this court's remand of the second action to the district court, Saylor filed the operative amended complaint that is the subject of the instant appeal. This complaint alleged a single cause of action premised on the 16 tort claims that Saylor filed with the State Claims Board in June 2016 and February 2017. The operative amended complaint attached and incorporated these tort claims by reference. They alleged various harms occurring on specific dates between June 2014 and February 2017, many of which were asserted to be "continuous" harms that involved either inadequate medical care or Saylor's conditions of confinement.

The State filed an answer asserting, in part, that "[s]ome, or all of [Saylor's] claims may be barred by the doctrine of res judicata." The State also moved for judgment on the pleadings, seeking dismissal of the operative amended complaint, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The sole basis for the State's motion was claim preclusion.

DISTRICT COURT DISMISSAL

Following a hearing, the district court entered a judgment, styled as an order, sustaining the State's motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissing the second action with prejudice. Addressing Saylor's arguments below, the court reasoned that both actions "alleged the same cause of action based on the same operative facts" and that the first action resulted in a final judgment on the merits.

The court examined the pleadings in the two actions. It noted that the amended complaint in the first action alleged, in part:

The negligence, carelessness and recklessness of [the State] consisted of the following, among other things:

A. In failing to provide [Saylor] with proper medical supplies for his cell;

B. In failing to provide [Saylor] with proper medication;

C. In failing to provide [Saylor] with proper psychotherapy;

D. In failing to provide [Saylor] with proper and necessary housing conditions;

E. In placing [Saylor] in an environment which exacerbates and worsens his medical condition;

F. In failing to provide continuity of care;

G. In failing to properly administer medications as prescribed by a physician;

H. In failing to render health care in accordance with good and accepted medical and professional practice; and,

I. In being otherwise careless, negligent and reckless under the circumstances.

The court stated: "Saylor pleaded that [the State's] alleged breaches were ongoing from approximately 2010 through present .... No specific administrative tort claim was referenced, cited, incorporated, or attached to either his complaint or amended complaint."

Turning to the operative amended complaint in the second action, the court noted that it alleged, in part:

[T]he [State] ha[s] negligently engaged in a course of conduct, breaching the above duties of care owed to [Saylor] in the following particulars including but not limited to:

a. Not providing the psychotherapy, mental health care and/or psychiatric care needed to adequately treat [Saylor's] PTSD that meets the community standard of care;

b. Not providing the psychotropic medication needed to adequately treat [Saylor's] PTSD that meets the community standard of care;

c. Not providing the continuity of care needed to adequately address [Saylor's] PTSD diagnosis and symptoms that meets the community standard of care;

d. Not providing the over counter medication needed to treat [Saylor's] migraine headaches that meets the community standard of care;

e. Continuing to violate its rules and regulations by placing [Saylor] in restrictive housing;

f. Continuing to house [Saylor] in restrictive housing against mental health staff recommendation and contrary to the community standard of care; g. Continuing to house [Saylor] in restrictive housing, subjecting [Saylor] to restraints and hard services despite physical injuries associated with the 2002 assault;

h. Depriving [Saylor] of medically necessary migraine headache medicine contrary to the community standard of care;

i. Depriving [Saylor] of medically necessary medical equipment contrary to the community standard of care and;

j. Failing to provide a continuity of care.

The court observed that the operative amended complaint "affirmatively references, attaches, and incorporates" the 16 tort claims filed by Saylor in June 2016 and February 2017. The court stated that the pleaded harms "appear to go beyond the confines of these administrative tort claims" and that some of the...