Sabata et al v. Nebraska Department of Correctional Services et al

Filing 520

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Suggestion of Mootness as to Zoe Rena, Filing 513 is granted. Zoe Rena is dismissed as a party to this case. The Motion to Withdraw, Filing 518 , is denied as moot. Ordered by Judge Brian C. Buescher. (LKO)

4:17-cv-03107-BCB-MDN Doc # 520 Filed: 12/01/20 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID # 22661

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
HANNAH SABATA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

4:17-CV-3107

vs.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, et al.,
Defendants.

I.

INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Suggestion of
Mootness as to Zoe Rena, Filing 513, and Rena’s attorneys’ Motion to Withdraw, Filing 518. For
the reasons stated herein, the Court dismisses Rena as a party and denies the motion to withdraw
as moot.
II.

ANALYSIS

Defendants move to dismiss Rena on the grounds that she has been released from custody
and her claims are therefore moot. Filing 515 at 1-2. Defendants submit evidence demonstrating
that Rena was released from custody on August 19, 2020. Filing 514-2 at 1.
The Court has previously addressed this same legal issue with respect to other Plaintiffs
who have been released from custody. In assessing those previous situations, the Court concluded
that once a party is released from the physical custody of the Nebraska Department of Correctional
Services (“NDCS”), his or her claims regarding the inadequacy of medical care received in an
NDCS facility are moot. See Filing 476 at 119-122. The same principles apply to moot Rena’s

1

4:17-cv-03107-BCB-MDN Doc # 520 Filed: 12/01/20 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID # 22662

claims now that she is no longer in custody.1 See UniGroup, Inc. v. Winokur, 45 F.3d 1208, 1211
(8th Cir. 1995) (citing Morris v. American Nat. Can Corp., 988 F.2d 50, 52 (8th Cir. 1993)) (“The
doctrine of the law of the case prevents the relitigation of settled issues in an action, thus protecting
the expectations of the parties, ensuring uniformity of decisions and promoting judicial
efficiency.”). Therefore, the Court grants Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
III.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Suggestion of Mootness
as to Zoe Rena, is granted. Filing 513. Furthermore, since Rena is no longer a party to this case,
her attorneys’ Motion to Withdraw, Filing 518, is moot. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
1. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Suggestion of Mootness as to Zoe Rena, Filing 513 is
granted;
2. Zoe Rena is dismissed as a party to this case, and
3. The Motion to Withdraw, Filing 518, is denied as moot.

Dated this 1st day of December, 2020.
BY THE COURT:

___________________
Brian C. Buescher
United States District Judge

Rena’s attorneys also agree she has been released from custody in moving to withdraw from representing her. Filing
518; Filing 518-1. However, the Court need not rely on such an admission by her attorneys because there is no
argument to be made that can change Rena’s dismissal in light of the evidence presented and the established law of
the case.
1

2