Montin v. Moore, No. 16-1560 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseAfter plaintiff was released from a twenty-year period of commitment when a jury found him responsible by reason of insanity, he filed suit against various psychologists, psychiatrists, and other employees, alleging medical malpractice under Nebraska state law. Plaintiff also alleged violation of his constitutional rights to be free from unnecessary confinement and free from retaliation for seeking access to courts. The court concluded that the district court did not err by dismissing the medical malpractice claim where plaintiff failed to comply with the requirements set forth by Nebraska's State Tort Claims Act (STCA), Neb. Rev. Stat. 81-8, 209 et seq. Assuming that Nebraska waived its sovereign immunity, plaintiff still failed to bring the suit in the district court of the county in which the act or omission occurred pursuant to the STCA. In regard to the district court's dismissal of the unnecessary confinement claim, the court concluded that plaintiff only alleged defendants' actions were negligent or, at worst, grossly negligent. Therefore, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity where actions that are merely negligent or grossly negligent do no implicate the protections of the Due Process Clause. Finally, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's retaliation claim where plaintiff failed to address the claim in his opening brief.
Court Description: Riley, Author, with Beam and Loken, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Medical malpractice. In action by person held for 20 years following a jury finding that he was not responsible for his crimes by reason of insanity, plaintiff's state law malpractice claim was improperly filed in federal court under the Nebraska State Tort Claims Act; if the court assumes that Nebraska has waived its sovereign immunity in this instance, any waiver of that immunity does not extend to actions brought in federal court as the Act specifically requires that the claim be brought in the state district court of the county in which the act or omission occurred; with respect to plaintiff's claim that he was unnecessarily confined, the actions alleged were negligence or, at worst, gross negligence, and such claims were properly dismissed as they do not implicate the protections of the Due Process Clause; plaintiff failed to address the dismissal of his retaliation in his appellate brief, and the district court order dismissing the claim is affirmed.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.