Glasgow v. State of Nebraska et al

Filing 22

MEMORANDUM OPINION ordered by Senior Judge Lyle E. Strom. (MBM)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
VELITA GLASGOW, Special
Administrator of the Estate
of Curtis Bradford,

)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
STATE OF NEBRASKA; DEPARTMENT )
OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES;
)
ROBERT HOUSTON, Retired
)
Director, Department of
)
Correctional Services, in his )
official and individual
)
capacities; DR. CAMERON WHITE,)
Behavioral Health
)
Administrator for the
)
Department of Correctional
)
Services, in his official
)
and individual capacities;
)
CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS;
)
DR. RANDY KOHL, in his
)
official and individual
)
capacities, CITY OF OMAHA,
)
JOHN DOE 1-100, and COUNTY
)
OF DOUGLAS, JOHN DOE 1-100,
)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________)

8:14CV394

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on defendants’ three
motions to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint (Filing No. 4, Filing
No. 7, and Filing No. 9), and on plaintiff’s motion to remand the
case to state court (Filing No. 18).

Plaintiff has filed two

complaints, one in federal court (8:14CV244, hereinafter “the
Federal Complaint”) and one in state court (8:14CV394,

hereinafter, “the State Complaint”).
substantially identical.
Court.

The complaints are

The Federal Complaint was filed in this

The defendants removed the State Complaint to federal

court and the State Complaint was assigned to the same Judge.
The defendants moved to dismiss the State Complaint on
the grounds that it is duplicative.
lawsuits are disfavored.

Redundant and duplicative

Colo. River Water Conservation Dist. v.

United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817 (1976) (stating that “the
general principle is to avoid duplicative litigation” when
federal district courts contemporaneously exercise jurisdiction
over identical litigation); Missouri ex rel. Nixon v. Prudential
Health Care Plan, Inc., 259 F.3d 949, 953 (8th Cir. 2001)
(“Plaintiffs may not pursue multiple federal suits against the
same party involving the same controversy at the same time.”).
The plaintiff seeks to proceed with this case, amend
the complaint, or to have the case remanded to state court.

The

Court will not allow the case to proceed in its current form
while an identical case exists.

The plaintiff can request leave

to amend the Federal Complaint, so there is no injustice if the
State Complaint is dismissed.

-2-

Finally, the plaintiff argues for remand to state
court.

The principles for concurrent jurisdiction differ as

among only federal courts and as among both state and federal
courts.

The general principle is that duplicative cases should

be avoided when identical cases appear in federal courts.

Colo.

River Water Conservation Dist., 424 U.S. at 817.
The State Complaint contains questions of federal law
which can be adequately addressed in the Federal Complaint.
Federal Complaint can be amended, if necessary.

The

For the forgoing

reasons, the Court will grant defendants’ motions to dismiss the
State complaint and will deny

plaintiff’s motion to remand.

A

separate order will be entered in accordance with this memorandum
opinion.
DATED this 16th day of January, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Lyle E. Strom
____________________________
LYLE E. STROM, Senior Judge
United States District Court

-3-